Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 10th April, 1952, for the Easter Recess—met at Half-past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Service Licences (Appeals)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport how many appeals have been made to him in connection with public service or road service licences under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, since he assumed office; how many of such appeals were from the refusal or failure of the licensing authority to grant such licences; how many were appeals from the grant of such licences by the licensing authority; and how many orders, respectively, confirming or revoking the decision of the licensing authority, be has made.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wilson: Can my hon. Friend say whether the number of appeals indicate whether the parties concerned are on the whole dissatisfied with the decisions of the licensing authority, or whether some variation of the system set up in 1930 by right hon. Gentlemen opposite might be considered?

Mr. Maclay: It is rather difficult to generalise about the results of these appeals. Appeals come in from various interested parties—from the railways, from nationalised bus companies and from a large number of privately-owned bus companies—and to generalise about whether or not they are satisfied with the results would clearly be very difficult. I would emphasise that this appeal is there for the protection of all these interests and not for any one of them.

Following is the answer:

There have been no appeals in connection with public service vehicle licences since I assumed office.

I have dealt with 56 cases affecting road service licences. Of these, 22 were against the refusal of licences and in each of them I upheld the licensing authority's decision. Eighteen cases were against the grant of a licence or against conditions attached to licences, and in 10 of them I have made Orders on the licensing authorities reversing their decisions in whole or in part.


Six cases related to the variation of conditions attached to licences on which I made one Order amending the variation. The remaining 10 cases covered more than one category and I made Orders in three of these cases revoking the licences granted.

In addition, 31 cases have been lodged but are not yet decided; 14 of these are against refusal of licences, 10 against licences as granted, six relate to variation of conditions and one relates partly to the refusal of a licence to one applicant and partly to the grant of a licence to another applicant.

Some of the cases on which these figures are based embrace several appeals relating to the same subject matter.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport in how many cases of appeal from the grant of licences by the licensing authority in connection with public service or road service licences under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Orders were made revoking the decision of the licensing authority; and what was the average interval between the making of the Order and the revocation of the licences for each of the years 1938, 1949 and 1950.

Mr. Maclay: I regret that the information desired could not be made available without an excessive amount of research.

Mr. Davies: I appreciate that the Minister of Transport has answered this Question. May I ask him whether it is not a fact that the average time between the issue of an Order in these cases and the revocation of the licence is generally a matter of a month or less, and in the case of Northern Roadways it has been extended over the summer period; and what explanation can he give for that?

Mr. Maclay: The latter part of the supplementary question was not on the Order Paper. I have not got the average time, but, unfortunately, some of the average times are rather long. In the case of Northern Roadways there was certainly a very long delay in getting a decision.

Mr. Davies: Would the Minister not agree that he is frustrating the purpose of the 1930 Act in allowing Northern Roadways to continue to operate over the summer simply because they had taken a number of bookings while the appeal was pending?

Mr. Maclay: It has always been left to the licensing authority to determine what was a reasonable time in which to suspend operations after a decision had been made. On this occasion, as I stated in my statement to the House, the time allowed was abnormally long, and that was done solely to avoid enormous inconvenience to a very large number of people.

Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that the decision to extend the time was not taken by the licensing authority but by the Minister of Transport himself?

Mr. Maclay: No, certainly not.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is this not a case where the hon. Gentleman's decision was overriden by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Maclay: Most certainly not. There was no decision of mine nor of the Prime Minister involved in the Northern Roadways case.

Mr. Speaker: We seem to be making very slow progress today.

Fare Increases

Mr. A. J. Champion: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take the necessary steps to amend the Transport Act, 1947, in such a way as to permit of the reference of such fare increases as those recently made by certain private omnibus companies to the appropriate Transport Users Consultative Committee, as was done in the case of the recent London Transport Executive's fare stage alterations and fare increases.

Captain Robert Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered a resolution from the Merton and Morden Urban District Council calling attention to the hardships caused to disabled persons and old age pensioners by the recent increase in transport fares; and whether he will now make a statement as to the Government's intentions regarding transport.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the action he has taken on the report on London Transport fares and fare stages made to him by the Central Transport Consultative Committee;
(2) if he will state the reasons why he issued a directive to the British Transport Commission on 15th April in regard to proposed fare increases on British Railways; on what grounds the advice to him, that he was powerless to take action under the Transport Act, 1947, was reversed; and if he will make a statement on the action he now proposes to take.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he has now decided to amend the Transport Act, 1947, to make himself responsible for fares;
(2) what action he has taken arising from the report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee on fares and fare stages in the London area.

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Minister of Transport (1) in view of his direction to the Transport Commission not to implement the proposed increase in fares outside the London area, what action he intends to take to ensure fair and equal treatment for the travel-ling public in London, where fares have already been increased;
(2) whether he has yet received and considered a report from the Central Transport Consultative Committee on fare stages and fares in the London area; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Minister of Transport what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to enable the British Transport Commission to meet their financial obligations.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to modify the recent increases of fares in the London area.

Mr. F. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport in view of his directive with regard to proposed provincial fare increases, what action he proposes to take with regard to the recent London area fare increases.

Mr. Maclay: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to make this afternoon at the end of Questions.

Mr. Beswick: Why is it now discovered possible for the Prime Minister to make

a statement on this matter when Conservative propaganda has always previously been that neither the Minister nor Parliament had any power to interfere with the actions of the Transport Commission?

Mr. Maclay: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which the Prime Minister is to make.

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman at least tell us why it is the Prime Minister and not he himself who is making this statement? Can we be sure that he takes responsibility for what the Prime Minister says?

Mr. Speaker: We had better await the statement. It is very difficult to argue this matter intelligently without the statement.

Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order. While I fully realise what you say, Mr. Speaker, there was a great list of Questions which the Minister read out and I was not sure which were included. For example, is Question No. 7 included? Is the Minister not answering that? Is that being left to the Prime Minister as well?

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir, No. 7 is not included in that list.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure the House really has not got the list of Questions which fall to the Minister and those which fall to the Prime Minister. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, can we ask the Minister which Questions he is now taking responsibility for and which Questions are now to fall to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Maclay: The numbers of the Questions which will be answered in the general statement of the Prime Minister are Nos. 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

Mr. Jay: I was not raising any question on the merits of the statement which we have not yet had. I was merely asking whether it is now the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister who takes responsibility for the Government's transport policy. Cannot we have an answer to that?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely that is covered by the general doctrine of joint responsibility.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. Might we have a Ruling on this matter? We are in some difficulty because we do not know to whom to address our Questions in future. We have put down to the Minister of Transport a number of Questions concerning matters for which we understood he was responsible. Now we are denied an answer from him today, and we are told that the Prime Minister will deal with this matter. Might we have guidance as to what action we should take in future?

Mr. Speaker: It is common practice in this House for one Minister to answer for another. I am not concerned in the least with the merits of whether that is always a wise thing to do, but it is quite in order for that procedure to be followed.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. The Minister of Transport told us on 17th March that he had no authority to do certain things which the Prime Minister stated on Saturday are now to be done. We wish, with respect, Mr. Speaker, to follow up this point with the Minister of Transport. It would be no use our asking the Prime Minister why the Minister of Transport told the House he had no authority, if the Prime Minister has the authority. That is the difficulty which the Minister of Transport is putting us into by not being willing to answer his own Questions.

Mr. Speaker: I think that these comments should come later, when we have had the statement.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Our difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is this: According to the Act of Parliament it is the Minister of Transport and he alone who has statutory authority to do certain things, and surely it is up to him, as he alone has the authority and the Prime Minister has not, to answer for certain acts which he does or does not do according to the Act which empowers these acts; and, therefore, we want to know why he is not answering for himself in this discharge of duties put upon him alone by the Transport Act?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue this.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I must give notice that we intend to pursue this matter. It is surely without precedent for a Minister to come to the

House, and on a whole series of Questions, at least eight or nine—[An HON. MEMBER: "Eleven."]—to tell us that he is not going to answer them, and is going to pass the matter on to the Prime Minister. This is really a complete derogation of his own responsibilities, and if he cannot carry out his duties better than this, he should resign.

Scottish Omnibuses Ltd. (Application)

Mr. Thomas Oswald: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that Scottish Omnibuses Limited made application to the licensing authority on 4th February, 1952, to duplicate existing services on their London routes during the summer season; and when the result of an appeal to him from the decision of the licensing authority can be expected.

Mr. Maclay: No such appeal is before me. I am informed that the application in question is to be heard by the licensing authority on the 25th April.

Mr. Oswald: Is the Minister aware that a very large number of individuals have notified their names to Scottish Omnibuses, Ltd., for the purpose of travelling on this route and that this undertaking runs a service 15s. cheaper than the company which has had permission from the Minister, and which was referred to in his reply to Question No. 5, and that Scottish Omnibuses have a considerable number of vehicles and sufficient personnel to give a duplication of this service?

Mr. Maclay: These are all points which would be put to the licensing authority when the case is heard.

Mr. Callaghan: Did the Minister know that these people had made an application when he extended Northern Roadways' service for six months?

Mr. Maclay: No, I did not.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Minister did not know that this application was being made, what right had he to get the licensing authority to extend the Northern Roadways' service for six months, if there was an appeal already under way by the bus company which is already running this service? Is not that just giving way to his friends?

Mr. Maclay: The decision was not made by the Minister in any way at all.


It was a question of what was reasonable and convenient for the passengers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Widnes-Runcorn Bridge

Mr. James MacColl: asked the Minister of Transport how many times during 1952 the Widnes-Runcorn transporter bridge has been closed; how many hours of carrying time have been lost; and what steps he takes to warn traffic to take alternative routes across the River Mersey.

Mr. Maclay: I am informed that this bridge has been closed four times this year for a total of 37 hours. I understand that on such occasions the bridge authority notifies the principal regular users, the police authorities and the motoring organisations and that alternative routes are signposted.

Mr. MacColl: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was most unfortunate for this vital transporter bridge to be closed as frequently as this in the course of only a few months, and will he take steps for the completion of the building of the new bridge, and prevent this hold up?

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very conscious of the problems in connection with this bridge, but the great difficulty is to get the materials at a time of acute shortage. As I hope he realises, I am watching the position as closely as possible, and as soon as anything can be done it will be done, but, unfortunately, I can hold out no immediate hopes.

Safety Reports

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has had an opportunity of considering the reports he has received on road safety; and if he will make a statement on this subject.

Mr. Maclay: I have not yet fully considered the two reports recently submitted to me by the Committee on Road Safety.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the Government are dithering over this matter a large number

of deaths are taking place, and will he give an idea of when he will be able to make a statement on this very important issue?

Mr. Maclay: I have assumed that the hon. Member was referring to the report on the Highway Code and the report on motor cycle accidents. There are other possibilities, but I take it that those were the two to which he was referring. These reports require very close technical study and examination of all the implications that are raised, and until that has been done it would not be right to come to conclusions.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister tell us what, in addition to these reports, he is doing about lighting the zebra crossings and steps of that description, which are very urgently needed?

Mr. Maclay: That is another question. So far as the lighting of zebra crossings is concerned, the technical recommendations are being studied and as soon as a decision is made it will be announced.

Lord Mayor's Show

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport when his consultations began with the Home Office about holding the Lord Mayor's Show on Saturdays; and why those consultations have been so prolonged.

Mr. Maclay: This matter has been under consideration ever since I assumed office and, I believe, for some time before, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I will try to reach a conclusion as soon as practicable.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for answering this Question at all, even if the answer is unsatisfactory, may I ask him to come to an early decision on the matter, otherwise we shall have to press for a statement on the subject from No. 10, Downing Street?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. and gallant Gentleman stresses this point regularly and effectively, but he knows very well that there are a great many interests involved in a decision like this, and a great many considerations.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the co-ordinator co-ordinates these things at all? There does not seem much of it.

Sir Harold Webbe: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that no consideration of alleged urgency will prevent his giving every aspect of the problem the most detailed and prolonged study?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Motor Car Deposits (Non-return)

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that the hon. Member for Coventry, South, submitted to him, some time ago, detailed evidence concerning the non-return of car deposits upon request; and, as such refusal is contrary to his announced policy, what action he proposes to take.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir. The action I took, and of which the hon. Lady has been informed, is to send on to the British Motor Trade Association the particulars contained in her letter. The results of their inquiries, so far as they have gone, are being forwarded to the hon. Member.

Miss Burton: While, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the public are glad of the result achieved in the matter of deposits, does he not think that the information which I sent to him as long ago as this was sent should by now have produced a reply from the people concerned?

Mr. Sandys: It is really not my responsibility to make all these detailed inquiries. The hon. Lady sent me certain particulars of individual cases about which she had complaints to make, and I forwarded them, as an act of courtesy, to the British Motor Trade Association; but it is not part of my business to look into these questions.

Miss Burton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he informed me in the House that he would be glad to receive any such details concerning irregularities?

Mr. Sandys: And, having received them, I forwarded them to the proper quarter.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Supply whether, as the Government have

approved the suggestion made by the retail side of the motor industry that deposits paid shall be returned at the customer's request unless delivery is expected in the near future, he will take steps to make illegal those contracts refusing such return when prolonged delay is admitted by the firm itself.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir. As I have already told the hon. Lady more than once, I am not prepared to seek powers to control the arrangements for the sale of motor cars.

Miss Burton: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the action taken by the motor trade last week is proof that everything that I and my hon. Friends have said about deposits is correct? Will he also agree that all deposits should be returned? Will he now turn his attention to the allocation of cars to car-hire firms and ask the trade for a report on the numbers?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady evidently believes in the maxim, "Never take 'No' for an answer."

Miss Burton: May I, in Leap Year, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that six times I have accepted his suggestion that we should go together to St. Martin's Lane and look at the prices of secondhand cars?

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry if I have not understood the position. I thought it was a joke. I hope the hon. Lady will not sue me for breach of promise.

Civil Aircraft (Delivery Dates)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent the super-priority given to the production of fighter aircraft will affect the delivery dates of civil air transport machines now in production.

Mr. Sandys: The grant of super-priority for the production of fighter aircraft should have no significant effect on the delivery dates of civil air transport types.

Mr. Beswick: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, whereas a few military aircraft more or less are unlikely to make all the difference between war and peace, 20 or 30 modern civil aircraft types might make all the difference, if delivered in time, to the commercial aviation future of this country?

Mr. Sandys: I fully recognise the importance of the production of civil types. We are doing everything we can to help firms develop the civil side of their business. All I was trying to make clear to the hon. Gentleman was that there is at present no conflict in factories between the production of civil types and the production of fighter aircraft.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real difficulty is not in factories but in drawing offices? Does he know that one of our leading manufacturers has said that he cannot put a single fresh project on the drawing board for two years because of the pressure in regard to military types? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with his answer to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Sandys: So far as civil types are concerned, the urgent problem is to get into production the very admirable types which are already fully developed and in which we have a substantial lead over other countries.

American Steel

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply what quantities of steel have been received to the latest convenient date against the American purchase of 1,000,000 tons; and what is the anticipated date of completion of shipments.

Mr. Sandys: At the end of the first quarter of this year, about 172,000 long tons of steel, pig iron and scrap for Britain had been delivered at works in the United States or at other sources of supply. Of this 85,000 tons has reached the United Kingdom. It is expected that deliveries at the source of supply will be completed by the end of 1952 in accordance with the agreement.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the one million tons of American steel added to the home production of approximately 16 million tons will be adequate to the needs of the defence programme, essential export requirements and other domestic needs?

Mr. Sandys: That is a pretty big question, and it is quite different from the one on the Order Paper. I should like to have notice of it.

Mr. George Chetwynd: In view of the uncertainty that exists in the American steel industry and the effect that this might have on deliveries of steel to this country, will the right hon. Gentleman re-open negotiations with the United States authorities to allow us to purchase ore and scrap direct from Germany and Sweden instead of indirectly through the United States?

Mr. Sandys: That really is the position. So far as we are getting additional ore, for example, from these countries as a result of this agreement we are receiving it direct and not getting it through the United States. What is happening is that the United States buyers are holding off, and so making more ore available in those countries for purchase by us.

Mr. R. Brooman-White: Will my right hon. Friend continue to impress on the Americans the great difficulties of our steel industry at the present time and the benefits of any steps to mitigate those difficulties, such as, in particular, the Americans continuing to make available to us the supplies of raw materials due to them under previous agreements with other European countries?

Mr. Sandys: I think the United States are very well aware of our needs. They have gone a long way to help us in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most interesting transactions recently completed at Moscow was the sale for immediate delivery by the Soviet Union to Pakistan of 100,000 tons of steel? Will he consider whether this might reveal a possible alternative source of supply?

Mr. Sandys: Steel from any quarter is very acceptable.

Textiles (Defence Contracts)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Supply on what basis defence contracts for textiles are being allocated by his Department.

Mr. Sandys: Defence contracts for textiles are normally allocated by competitive tender, subject to the special preference given to Development Areas.
However, in the case of the contracts for the additional £20 to £25 million worth of orders recently announced by


my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, invitations to tender will as far as possible be directed to areas which are most severely afflicted by the current recession. In the selection of these areas I am guided by the advice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of those contracts will be going to wool and cotton respectively, and over how long a period the placing of the orders will occur, and can he give us an assurance that the interests of the smaller towns and smaller firms will not be overlooked in favour of their larger rivals?

Mr. Sandys: We certainly will not overlook the interests of the smaller towns and firms. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman at once the proportions for which he asks. We are placing the contracts as quickly as possible and have already placed some since the House rose for the Easter Recess.

Motor Cars (Home Quota)

Mr. Maurice Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply what advice he has received from the National Advisory Council for the motor manufacturing industry concerning the desirable proportion of motor car allocations to the home and export markets, respectively.

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Supply if, in view of the need to speed up business and save time, money and material in patching up very old motor cars, he will raise the present quota of motor cars allowed to the home market.

Mr. Sandys: The size of the home quota is governed by our pressing need to expand exports. The motor manufacturers have recently suggested that the home quota should not be a fixed figure, but should be calculated as a proportion of the industry's export trade. I am at present examining the implications of this proposal with them.

Mr. Edelman: In the meantime, provided the motor industry fulfils its annual export quota, will the right hon. Gentleman give the industry greater flexibility, particularly during its present difficulties, in order to make, if possible, earlier allocations to the home market?

Mr. Sandys: It was with the object of getting greater flexibility that the motor manufacturers put forward this proposal which, as I have told the House, I am at present examining with them.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware of the cancellation of the Lagonda contract with Messrs. Motor Panels (Coventry), Limited, details of which were supplied to him on 24th March last; and, in view of the impact of such cancellations on the production of specialist high-priced cars, if he will adjust the quota of these cars for the home market.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady's Question appears to be based on a misapprehension. I am informed that the contract referred to has not been cancelled.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how happy I shall be if his statement is correct—and I have no reason to think otherwise—and how glad the people of Coventry will be to learn that the contract has not been terminated?

Disused Railway Track and Buildings (Scrap)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to survey and collect scrap-iron and steel from closed-down and disused railway branch lines, particularly rails not capable of reuse as such.

Mr. Sandys: I went into this matter some months ago with my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and he has asked the Railway Executive to hasten the dismantling of disused track and buildings so as to increase the volume of ferrous scrap recovered during the present period of shortage.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Establishment, Worcester

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of National Insurance why the National Assistance Board maintain at Clent, Worcestershire, an establishment for dealing with persons who have lost the habit of work; what is the curriculum of this establishment; how many inmates there are; what is the cost per annum to his Department for maintaining the establishment; how long inmates are kept in residence; and why public funds should be expended for this purpose.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): The Board have established this centre under the provisions of Section 16 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, with the object of restoring habits of work which these men have lost; the men cultivate the land or carry out such indoor work as needs to be done; the number in the centre at present is about 20; the men ordinarily stay for a few weeks only before being placed in regular employment; and the gross cost is about £4,000 a year.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that a certain amount of public misapprehension arises from the curious description given to this establishment—a place for training men who have lost the habit of work? Would my hon. Friend consider giving it a more appropriate name, thereby restoring confidence amongst the general public that it is a legitimate item of public expenditure?

Mr. David Logan: Does it require any training at all?

Mr. Turton: The word used in the Act was "re-establishment." Actually this is a very valuable social experiment, which is building up the muscles of men which have gone slack, and giving to other men, who have no longer the will to maintain themselves, the will to do so. We are getting very encouraging results.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman inform the Board that they should not take too much notice of this criticism? Does not the Act ensure valuable human rehabilitation work?

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Question was not motivated by criticism, but to allay public misapprehension about the expenditure of funds on a legitimate social experiment?

Contributions

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will consider giving insured persons the choice between contributing to the National Insurance schemes in one life payment as an alternative to the normal weekly contributions.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir.

Mr. Vane: Would my hon. Friend look into this matter again not only in order to save a good deal of administrative work, but also to give a number of men and women who were under 65 and 60 when the scheme came into force a chance of obtaining the security which they have not at present got, but could get through the payment of a lump sum?

Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend must remember that men and women pass through different insurance classifications in the course of their lives. Sometimes they are employed, sometimes they are self-employed and sometimes they are non-employed. Therefore, a single payment to cover all these classifications, we think, would be an impracticable proposition.

Claims (Procedure)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that serious hardship is being caused to claimants who, owing to illness or otherwise, are prevented from appearing before the local National Insurance tribunal, and are not allowed to be represented there even by a near relative such as a son if he is a barrister or solicitor; and if he will amend Regulation 13 of the National Insurance (Determination of Claims and Questions) Regulations, 1948, to remedy this position.

Brigadier R. Medlicott: asked the Minister of National Insurance if his attention has been drawn to the case where the local National Insurance appeal tribunal at Skipton refused to allow a man to represent his mother at the hearing of an appeal in respect of her pension, on the ground that he was a solicitor; and if he will take steps to correct this anomalous interpretation of Regulation 13 of the National Insurance (Determination of Claims and Questions) Regulations, 1948.

Mr. Turton: Claimants who are ill can ask for the hearing of their cases to be postponed. The rule, which prohibits legal representation before local tribunals, has existed for over 30 years and has been reviewed on three occasions by independent committees, none of which has recommended its abolition. My right hon. Friend is not aware that hardship is being caused and does not think it necessary to propose any amendment of the Regulation.
The application of the Regulation to individual cases is a matter for the tribunal and the commissioner, with which my right hon. Friend cannot interfere.

Mr. Janner: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that at a local appeals tribunal at Skipton a solicitor, who was looking after the affairs of his mother, who had been bedridden for three months, was not allowed to represent her at the hearing? Does not that create a ridiculous position, and will the hon. Gentleman not go into the matter again?

Mr. Turton: It would be very improper for me to comment upon the finding of a tribunal when that matter might be the subject of an appeal to a commissioner. That is a matter in which no Minister could properly interfere.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that the right of a citizen to be represented by an advocate has, in fact, existed from time immemorial and the modern tendency to interfere with this right is a great deprivation to those who are not blessed with the gift of fluent speech? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the whole Regulation again?

Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend must realise that this has been a Regulation for the last 30 years. Committees have been appointed to go into it and they have all come to the conclusion that it is the fairest way of expediting business and of securing justice for the claimant. Therefore, I cannot look into it again.

Mr. Janner: But has not this case to which I have referred been drawn to the attention of the Minister, and does he not think it a ludicrous position to find that a son, who happens to be a solicitor, is not allowed to appear before a tribunal in order to plead his mother's case? Will he please look into the matter and see what can be done about it?

Mr. Turton: I repeat it would be quite improper for me to comment upon a matter which may be the subject of an appeal.

West Ham

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of National Insurance the number of persons in the county borough of West Ham in receipt of National Assistance in October, 1951, and at the latest stated date.

Mr. Turton: The comparative figures are 6,229 in October, 1951, and 6.492 in March, 1952.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of National Insurance the number of persons in receipt of standard or additional days' benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme in October, 1951, and at the latest stated date, for persons in the county borough of West Ham.

Mr. Turton: At the offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service situated in the area the number of persons in receipt of standard unemployment benefit and additional days of that benefit on 22nd October, 1951, were 855 and 20 respectively, and on 24th March, 1952, were 946 and 29 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Dollar Imports

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the annual cost for the last 12 months for which figures are available of imports into Great Britain of oil and fuel from the dollar area and what percentage does this represent of the total annual cost of dollar imports for the same period.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): A sum of £92 million, f.o.b., or 12½ per cent. of our total visible imports from the dollar area.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend make a public announcement to cover the specific point raised in this Question, and in all industries, that this country has got to produce the goods and services at world competitive prices or starve, and that has to be done at whatever sacrifice and whatever effort? Will he do that?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is well known.

Gas Consultative Councils (Publicity)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make regulations to enable the various Consultative Councils of the Gas Industry to publicise their own existence, and in particular to ensure that full details of the composition and powers of the councils should be exhibited at all gas showrooms and any other suitable and available premises.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The hon. Member's suggestion does not require any new regulations.

Mr. Beswick: In that case will the Minister see that steps are taken to publicise the composition and the powers of these councils? Although it has been done in the North Thames area, thanks to the vigilance of my constituents, will he see that similar steps are taken elsewhere in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, but I think the circumstances of the councils vary. They are taking various steps suited to their districts.

Coal Production

Mr. Joseph T. Price: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the fact that British miners increased production of deep mined coal by 2,500,000 tons in the first 14 weeks of 1952 he will give his continued encouragement to all concerned in the industry with the object of raising 230,000,000 tons this year.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Every effort is being made to increase production this year as much as possible. But I must point out that last year the first 14 weeks included the Easter holidays whereas this year they did not, and, therefore, the output figures for the two years are not comparable.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTURBANCES, EGYPT (FUNERAL EXPENSES)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made for defraying the funeral expenses of the British subjects who were killed during the recent disturbances in Egypt.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): Her Majesty's Consul-General at Cairo has advanced the funeral costs in respect of six of these British subjects. In the remaining four cases, the costs have been defrayed from other sources.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (U.K. RELATIONSHIP)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conditions will be attached to the guarantee

being offered by Her Majesty's Government to Western Germany.

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the guarantee by Her Majesty's Government to the six Western European Governments forming the European Defence Community in the event of an armed attack on any one of them.

Mr. Eden: Since the reply is inevitably rather long, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, with your permission, Sir, I were to give it at the end of Questions.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Eden: The House will have seen the White Paper published last Wednesday on the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Defence Community. Her Majesty's Government have on several occasions indicated their special interest in the E.D.C. and their intention to associate the United Kingdom as closely as possible with it in all stages of its political and military development.
On 5th February, I told the House of our wish to maintain close consultation on problems of common interest with the Community and of the ways in which our forces on the Continent could be linked with the E.D.C forces. The Minister of Defence will shortly be discussing these matters with his French colleague, M. Pleven. I also spoke of our resolve to maintain Armed Forces on the Continent of Europe as long as is necessary.
On 28th February, I told the House of the arrangement agreed at Lisbon for linking the E.D.C. with N.A.T.O., that the members of both organisations should be reciprocally bound by the obligations laid down in the North Atlantic Treaty and that there should be joint meetings of the two Councils. On 24th March I described to the House our proposals for the future of the Council of Europe. The arrangements we propose would enable those members of the Council of Europe who so desire to keep in continuous contact with the political organs of the E.D.C. during its development. We shall of course make full use of that opportunity. In these various ways it seemed to us that provision had


been made for very close relations between the United Kingdom and the E.D.C.
On 14th March, however, the E.D.C. Conference invited Her Majesty's Government to enter into a formal treaty relationship with the Community. In particular they asked that such an agreement should include a reciprocal undertaking to render military assistance in the event of attack on the lines of the provisions of Article IV of the Brussels Treaty. Her Majesty's Government gave careful thought to this request and came to the conclusion that they could enter into such a relationship. I therefore sent the Conference a draft of the substantive clauses for an agreement. This draft is set out in the White Paper.
The effect of the proposal is that our commitment to provide assistance, including military assistance, in the event of attack, to France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg is now extended to all the members of the E.D.C. and to the European Defence Forces.
In return, if we are attacked, we will receive automatic military assistance from all members of the E.D.C. and its Forces. The commitments on both sides last as long as we are members of the North Atlantic Treaty.
This proposal is, of course, in no way in conflict with our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. The defence system in Europe will continue to be based upon that Treaty. Germany, though not a member of N.A.T.O., will participate in Western defence through her membership of the E.D.C., which will be linked with N.A.T.O. in the manner agreed at Lisbon.
This new proposal of ours weaves naturally into this pattern. The members of the E.D.C. wished to have a clear expression of our position. We have met their request and agreed to state clearly and unequivocally that if they are attacked in Europe, we shall afford them all the military and other aid and assistance in our power.
In return we receive a reciprocal undertaking from them. Thus, if we are attacked, we are assured of automatic assistance not only from our Brussels partners but from the other E.D.C. members as well and from the European Defence Forces as a whole.
The House will note that we thus obtain an undertaking from the Federal Republic of Germany. At present we have an obligation under the Tripartite Security Guarantee of September, 1950, to treat an attack upon the Federal Republic or Berlin as an attack upon us, but the Federal Republic has no reciprocal obligation.
The British proposal has been enthusiastically received by the countries concerned. This is demonstrated by the statement issued by the E.D.C. Governments on 16th April, in which the proposal was "welcomed with great satisfaction." We have here established a formal and special relationship between the United Kingdom and the E.D.C. This clearly shows that, although we cannot actually join that Community, we are linked with its fortune and stand at its side.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? Is this agreement, which seems to be generally in line with the obligations we have undertaken under N.A.T.O., E.D.C. and our occupation, going to be made into a formal treaty, and will it be submitted to the House for ratification? I should also like to ask him whether the United States of America is taking any action at all on parallel lines in support of the E.D.C.?

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for those two questions. This offer—it is an offer of an undertaking, and we have submitted our own draft—does not, of course, come into force until after the general agreements on the E.D.C. and on the German contractural obligations are signed and ratified, and, of course, the House will have an opportunity for discussion before that occurs. Regarding the second point about the United States, the right hon. Gentleman may remember that, in our declaration at Lisbon last February, the American Government said that they would consult with us and with the French Government in order to find appropriate means of giving the Community co-operation and support, and consultation between the U.S. Government and ourselves to give effect to the Lisbon communiqué is now proceeding.

Mr. E. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is proposed to implement such an agreement without a guarantee from the United States that they


would render assistance in the event of an attack? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that, in the foreseeable future, the E.D.C. could resist an attack from any quarter without assistance from the United States?

Mr. Eden: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman should know, if anybody does, that these E.D.C. obligations are all linked to the obligations under N.A.T.O., and that the two work closely together.

Mr. Shinwell: But this is something quite distinct, is it not, from the N.A.T.O. understanding that, in the event of an attack on any of the member States associated with N.A.T.O., the whole of the N.A.T.O. Forces, including the United States and Canada, would render assistance? This is something quite different. It is confined, is it not, to the six countries associated with the E.D.C., none of which is capable of resisting an attack from any quarter in the present situation or in the foreseeable future? I ask the right hon. Gentleman how does he propose that this agreement should be actually and practically implemented without assistance from the United States?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well, of course, that the obligations under N.A.T.O. are shared by the United States and Canada and the N.A.T.O. Powers.

Mr. Shinwell: That has nothing to do with the E.D.C.

Mr. Eden: It has everything to do with it, and the right hon. Gentleman, having been Minister of Defence, should know that. Both the Defence Community and the N.A.T.O. arrangements are most closely linked through half-a-dozen different arrangements.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if he will clarify two points on this very remarkable commitment? First of all, with regard to the United States, would the Foreign Secretary make it clear whether or not this new commitment is dependent upon the United States being bound by a similar commitment, or is it independent of what the position of the United States may be? Secondly, may I ask him whether this new commitment is in any way dependent upon what may be the future position of Western Germany? Is it dependent upon

the creation or size of any particular Western German Army, or upon the future complexion of the Western German State?

Mr. Eden: Of course, the whole of these arrangements are entirely dependent, as I have already explained, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, on agreements being reached between the E.D.C. countries and ourselves about the German contribution and about German contractual obligations, and the whole of these things go together. What these European countries asked for from us was this particular undertaking, which seemed to us reasonable and not greatly to extend our commitments as they stand under N.A.T.O.

Mr. Clement Davies: With regard to the position of the United States, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the members of the Commonwealth have been fully informed on this matter?

Mr. Eden: That is so, at every stage of these discussions.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is now the position of Berlin, because Berlin is not a part of the German Federal Republic, and the people there are very alarmed because they think our previous obligation to defend Berlin if attacked is now removed by a lesser obligation under the E.D.C., which is only to defend the West German Republic?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Berlin is in a special position because the French troops in Berlin do not form part of their proposed E.D.C. forces, but our undertaking to Berlin, as given in 1950, still stands in its entirety.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the case that these new commitments stem directly from those undertaken under the Brussels Treaty, and that we could not possibly avoid doing anything other than this?

Mr. Eden: I think they underline the position more clearly, and that is a gain to everybody concerned.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman, when he read his carefully prepared statement, used the word Germany without qualification. May I ask him whether or not he intended to refer,


as we all no doubt imagined, to Western Germany, and whether, in that case, this whole statement is not based on the presumption that there can be no unification of Germany within the immediate or foreseeable future?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the importance of the broader grounds of the question he has just raised. We hope there will be a unified Germany within a free Western Europe, and we do not hold that a unified Germany must be tied to Communism and the East.

Mr. Silverman: That is a silly reply.

Mr. Eden: Then the hon. Gentleman should clarify his question.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: It has been extremely difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman, because, whenever he has been asked whether the United States is involved in this new commitment, he has said that the United States is involved in N.A.T.O. and that N.A.T.O. is the larger, embracing the lesser, in which case it is very difficult to understand what additional commitment has been made, except that—and this is the main point of my question—if we are to have a reciprocal guarantee between ourselves and Western Germany, it would appear to be logical that we should at once proceed to re-arm Western Germany, because the significance of the new commitment is that it is an obvious device to make the re-armament of Western Germany more logical?

Mr. Eden: I ask the House to believe that this is not a device at all. It is an attempt to contribute to a settlement of the European situation, and it is a completely logical consequence of the clear policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman when he was a Member of the Government Front Bench. I would only add, as far as the United States is concerned, that clearly, the United States Government must speak for itself and make their own statements about their own commitments; but, as I said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, and I hoped I had made it clear, the position of the United States and what it might be willing to say to us in respect of these arrangements with the E.D.C. countries

is a matter which is now under discussion. Beyond that, I cannot go at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this latter statement. Does it not mean that the United States Government have not committed themselves, otherwise than through N.A.T.O.—not through the E.D.C. treaty—to go to the assistance of any of the six member countries of the E.D.C. and that, so far, the United States has not agreed to give any commitment?

Mr. Eden: It is true that the commitments of the United States are under N.A.T.O. and United Nations obligations, and it is also true that the question whether anything further is to be said by the United States Government is a matter for them. I have indicated that the matter has been and is under discussion, and, therefore, I cannot say more.

Mr. F. Maclean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision to give this guarantee has already done a very great deal to restore confidence in Europe, and represents a remarkable contribution towards a peaceful solution?

Mr. Eden: I have noticed that every single Government in Europe of whatever political complexion has most warmly welcomed this proposal, and I hope that the House will also feel that it is a contribution to peace.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Arising from that last answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this announcement means that these proposals supersede the Prime Minister's proposals at Strasbourg for a European Army with a European Minister of Defence?

Mr. Eden: These proposals in themselves supersede nothing. They can only come into force when the European Defence Community arrangements and contractual arrangements with Germany are finally settled, which they are not yet.

Mr. Hoy: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Prime Minister's original proposals still stand, and, if so, will they have the backing of the Government or not?

Mr. Eden: That question is not at all related to what I have said.

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a foreign affairs debate.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. You may have heard, Mr. Speaker, that in response to a remark of mine, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary invited a further clarification of the not unimportant question I asked him. In those circumstances, may I ask your indulgence, Sir, in clarifying the question which the right hon. Gentleman asked to have clarified?

Mr. Speaker: I heard some sort of disorderly exchange between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman. If it would clarify the matter, the hon. Member may put his question.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman not concede that there is conceivable—I do not put it in any other way than that—a united Germany neither wholly dependent on the West nor on anyone else, and that proposals to that purpose have from time to time been made? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement and this whole plan presuppose that such a solution of the German problem has been treated by the Government and by N.A.T.O. as either wholly unattainable or as undesirable?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. It is neither unattainable nor undesirable in our view that there should be a united Germany, but we do not see anything inconsistent in desiring a united Germany and in seeking to work with the Federal Republic, which is free and able to act as it wishes.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. You made a remark, Mr. Speaker, that this was developing into a debate. May I ask you, Sir, what opportunity we shall have to debate the question which is now before the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, nor is it a point for me to decide. If the question of a foreign affairs debate is exciting the interest of the House, then it is usual for an opportunity to be arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order, or on a point of explanation, anyhow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am entitled

to ask Mr. Speaker for a point of explanation. Hon. Members opposite always intervene in respect of that on which Mr. Speaker guides the House quite frequently. Either the statement made today is extremely serious or it means nothing. May I, therefore, through you, Sir, suggest through the usual channels that we have an early opportunity for debating the matter in this House?

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. In the course of these questions, there has been put to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary on five separate occasions a vital point which can involve many hundreds of thousands of British lives. Quite simply it is whether the United States is committed to this, or, if not, whether we are if the United States refuses to be. May I respectfully submit to you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that in terminating the questions on this matter before any answer has been received to that point the House is being deprived of vital information. As I have said, the question was addressed to the right hon. Gentleman by four or five hon. Members on this side of the House, and, surely, I am entitled respectfully to submit to you, Sir, that that question ought to be allowed to be put once more by somebody who has risen many times during this discussion but who has not had the opportunity of putting it?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point of order, I heard the question asked and answered. Whether the answer is unsatisfactory to the hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Eggs

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Minister of Food what is his estimate of the loss of food value when shell eggs are respectively frozen, changed to liquid eggs, or dried.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): There is no loss of food value when shell eggs are broken out to form liquid egg, nor when liquid egg is frozen and stored in the frozen state. Up to 30 per cent. of the Vitamin B content of eggs may be lost during drying. Further losses of Vitamin B and also of Vitamin A may


occur during storage of dried egg, the extent being dependent on the conditions of storage.

Bakers' Profit Margins

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on his recent negotiations with the Master Bakers' Association; what increase in profit margins has been granted; and what the effect of this increase will be on the price of the 2lb. loaf.

Major Lloyd George: My discussions with the Association covered a wide range of matters of particular concern to small bakers. No increase in the profit margin has been granted but, as I announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) on 10th April, I have arranged for more speedy adjustment of the rate of bread subsidy in order to help the industry.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in spite of what he said, great publicity is being given in the national Press in the direction of suggesting that concessions are being granted to certain sections of the baking industry? Does he not agree that the present price of bread is one of the most damning in dictments, above all others, against this Government?

Major Lloyd George: With regard to the point about publicity, I answered a Question on 10th April in regard to more speedy adjustment of the subsidy and that is the question to which some publicity has been given.

Dried Fruit

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what were the dates of the last two allocations of dried fruits; and when the next can be expected.

Major Lloyd George: The last two allocations were made on 4th November, 1951, and 23rd March, 1952, respectively. The next will be on 18th May.

Mr. S. Marshall: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of abundant supplies of sultanas and raisins available from non-dollar areas, all present control by bulk purchase can be lifted so that growers may have the opportunity of supplying to British housewives the quality of fruit formerly available.

Major Lloyd George: I have under continuous review the possibility of changes in our methods of importing a number of commodities at present bought by my Department, including dried vine fruits. But our general balance of payments position has created special difficulties by making it necessary for us to control strictly our imports not only from dollar sources but also from other non-sterling sources. My information is that non-dollar supplies of dried vine fruits are far from abundant.

Mr. S. Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what was the cost to his Department of the dried fruits section for packaging, reconditioning, storage and port services for 1950–51.

Major Lloyd George: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Packing and reconditioning of dried fruits are accounted for under one heading in my Department's records and the cost in 1950–51 was £73,752, of which £61,691 relates to the packaging of Ministry imported dates in ½ lb. packets for retail sale, a service which ceased in July, 1950.

The cost of storage of dried fruits in 1950–51 was £153,692. The cost of port services (i.e., supervision of landing, warehousing, sampling and assessing quality) was £37,692.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Mr. Lewis: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how, in view of the rise in the price of food and general overheads, the receipts from the Members Dining Room fell from £23,813 in 1946 to £13,920 in 1951.

Mr. W. A. Steward: A number of factors could have contributed to the difference in receipts in the Members' Dining Room for the years 1946 and 1951. In March, 1946, Members' salaries were increased from £600 to £1,000 per annum, and probably Members felt they had more money to spend on food in the House, and in fact, did spend more. In the succeeding years 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950


and 1951, as the cost of living steadily rose, Members no doubt began to economise.

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Member aware of the fact that most hon. Members are of the opinion that the reason for the rapid decline is the fact that the price of meals is too excessive in the Dining Room and will he look at that matter?

Mr. Steward: We have already looked at the prices of meals in the House and I think the hon. Member will see that we have effected certain alterations as from today.

Mr. Lewis: But is the hon. Member aware that the Tea Room revenue has gone up, thus proving that hon. Members are being driven out of the Dining Room into the Tea Room as they cannot afford to eat in the Dining Room at present high rates?

Mr. Steward: The fact that hon. Members are using the Tea Room more than the Dining Room merely proves they have not quite so much to spend as they had.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Burma (Debts to U.K.)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what gifts or loans have been given by Britain to Burma since the end of the war; and if he will make a statement regarding the terms of repayment of the loans.

The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): Since the war Her Majesty's Government have cancelled debts due by Burma and forgone claims in respect of such things as military administration expenditure amounting in all to £36 million. A debt of £27.8 million is still outstanding which is due to be repaid in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty of 17th October, 1947, between the two Governments in 20 equal annual instalments beginning not later than 1st April, 1952. As the hon. Member will be aware, the Burma Government have recently requested Her Majesty's Government to agree to the postponement of the repayments due this month.

Mr. Reid: Have Her Majesty's Government agreed to defer repayment?

Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. I think there is a Question later in the week in regard to that matter.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that these loans have assisted in combating the spread of Communist Imperialism in Asia?

Sir A. Salter: I will not dispute that.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Ralph Assheton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the receipts from Purchase Tax on textiles, giving, if possible, the different categories for the three months January, February and March, 1951; and for the same months of 1952.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Purchase Tax is payable quarterly and estimates are available of receipts of tax from the various categories of textiles in the quarter ended 31st March, 1951. I regret that similar information for the quarter ended 31st March, 1952, is not yet available.
I will with permission circulate the 1951 figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Assheton: Am I right in thinking that these figures are only estimates, and that, owing to the peculiar method of collection of Purchase Tax, it is impossible to get an accurate figure?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures are substantially accurate, although, as my right hon. Friend is aware, there are certain limitations on the degree of precision which is obtainable.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Financial Secretary give the figure for the current quarter as soon as it is known?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As soon as the figures are available, I will do so, if a Question is put down.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend ensure that carpets are shown in a special category in these figures and that Purchase Tax collected is shown separately in view of the general indignation that


the carpet and rug group is the only form of textiles which carries an overall Purchase Tax?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Hale: Surely the Financial Secretary knows that the resources of the Treasury are sufficient to give a general indication of what the general diminution in Purchase Tax on textiles has been? Cannot he give the House now what information is available in respect of any part of the last quarter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot give precise figures because, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, Purchase Tax is collected quarterly in arrears and there is a considerable time lag. It would be misleading to give the House the information before it is fully available. As soon as it is available, it will be given.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: Does my hon. Friend recollect that when I put a similar Question to him, in the week before last, about boots and shoes, he had to tell me he had no figures available? Is it not extremely difficult to assess the effect on any trade of any tax if one does not know the amount of the tax?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the difficulty to which my right hon. and gallant Friend has referred, but he will appreciate that this information has to be collected and collated from a wide variety of sources and takes time to collect, and there are certain limitations about the form in which it can be collected.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Has the hon. Gentleman sufficient evidence to show where the reduction in Purchase Tax yield has been substantial?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I prefer not to comment until the figures are available.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted

that a fall in revenue is probable in this quarter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will appreciate that the figures received for the first quarter of this year refer to the last quarter of 1951.

Following are the figures:


Class of goods
Estimated receipts of Purchase Tax in quarter ended 31st March, 1951



£'000


Clothing, except footwear and fur apparel
13,061


Fur apparel
1,362


Haberdashery
2,737


Piece goods (including plastic sheeting)
4,466


Domestic textile articles
2,564


Rugs
518


Floor coverings
5,339

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED TOMATOES

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been draw to the increasing quantities of imported tomatoes which are being sold without it being disclosed that they are of foreign origin; and if he will draw the attention of local authorities to the need to use their powers under the Merchandise Marks Act, and thus assist in protecting the home market for the home growers.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): My right hon. Friend is aware that some retailers have been selling tomatoes without indicating the country of origin. The Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, empowers Local Authorities to enforce marking orders applicable to foodstuffs, but it does not require them to do so. My right hon. Friend is arranging for them to be reminded of the various marking orders now in operation.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend see if he can do something to bring to the public notice the fact that home growers of tomatoes today are able to put their tomatoes on the market at almost exactly the same price as the prewar price, which is about the only commodity of which that can be said?

TRANSPORT FARES INCREASES

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): The need for fare increases has arisen from advances in working costs incurred mainly during the administration of the previous Government. The increases were authorised by the Transport Tribunal as prescribed in the Transport Act, 1947, after they had received from the British Transport Commission a draft Passenger Charges scheme and held a public inquiry.
The scheme, with modifications, was confirmed by the Tribunal on 27th February, and, by order of the Tribunal, came into force in London four days later on 2nd March. Until the scheme came into operation, it was not possible to measure the full effects of the use which the British Transport Commission had made of its discretionary powers under the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport did, however, on 11th March, refer to the Central Transport Consultative Committee alterations in London of fare stages and fares in relation to them. The Committee have submitted their report; they accept the need for these increases and make no complaint of the manner in which the Transport Commission has exercised its discretionary powers. But, for reasons which will appear from what I have to say later, the Government are themselves considering whether any action should be taken in respect of the disproportionate increases in sub-standard fares in London.
Outside London the scheme does not come into force until 1st May. The Government were, therefore, able to inform themselves more precisely of the effect of these proposed increases, and as a result they decided that some further delay must be imposed in order that these proposals could be more fully considered in relation to the general scheme of transport reform which they have in hand. They were particularly concerned at certain exceptionally severe changes in the cost of workmen's tickets and season tickets; and they also considered that some of the proposed changes in concession fares ought not to be imposed upon the public without Parliamentary discussion.
For instance, an increase of 40 per cent. was to be made in the following cases of concession fares: anglers, commercial travellers, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Mercantile Marine—going on leave—children at training schools and ships, shipwrecked mariners, entertainers and music hall artistes, agricultural workers (return fare), visitors to children at approved schools, and poor children on holiday sponsored by voluntary bodies. These examples are not of major financial consequence, but they raise issues which in our opinion should not be settled without the attention of the Government of the day and of the House of Commons to which they are responsible.
As a result of our consideration of all these matters, the Minister of Transport felt it his duty on 15th April to give a direction to the British Transport Commission, as a result of which the increases which the Commission proposed to make under the scheme have been suspended, though certain reductions required by the scheme will come into force on 1st May. The Minister proposes to seek the views of the Consultative Committee on the question of railway fares outside London, and naturally before reaching a full and final decision he must await their report.
Nevertheless, this whole question requires the urgent attention of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons has arranged that next Monday will be devoted to a full discussion of all its aspects, and I trust this will be in accordance with the wishes of the House.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I am sure we are all very glad to see the Prime Minister here, notwithstanding his recent cold, and we are happy that he is entirely recovered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But we are sorry that the Prime Minister has had to take over the duties of the Minister of Transport in this way, including the duty of answering 11 Questions. If the offer of a debate next Monday had not been made, we were proposing to move the Adjournment of the House, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, to draw attention to this matter, but as we are to have a debate next Monday for the whole day, that will serve as an adequate substitute.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Minister


of Transport, in the House, on 17th March, having explained the procedure, said:
This is the procedure laid down in the Transport Act and I am advised that it would not be proper for me to issue directions such as those to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1951; Vol. 497, c. 1919.]
Could the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened in the meantime to make what was improper then proper now? Is it anything other than the county council elections?
May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to lay a White Paper setting out the legal position and the philosophy of the matter as Her Majesty's Government see it; and whether, in the circumstances now apparent, since he has had to take over the supervision of the Ministry of Transport, he proposes also to dispense with the services of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power?

The Prime Minister: The House will note the characteristic chivalrous touch at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's question. We are going to have a debate on Monday next, and I think all these points can be much better ventilated then than they can by Question and answer across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Ernest Davies: At the beginning of his statement the right hon. Gentleman said that under the late administration the costs of the operation of transport had increased substantially, and he indicated that that was the reason for the rise in fares and charges. Is he not aware that if it had not been for the co-ordination and integration of transport, as has been pointed out by the British Transport Commission in its Report, the fares and the charges would have had to be increased considerably further? Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give to the House the assurance that if any adjustments follow from the report of the Consultative Committee, London will be treated on an equality with the rest of the country?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will have the good fortune to catch your eye on Monday, Mr. Speaker. If he does, I am sure he will be sorry that he is giving so much of his speech away beforehand.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, I had two Questions on the Order Paper this afternoon. I protested at the time at the refusal of the Minister of Transport to answer those Questions. I have now followed up with supplementary questions which are directly relevant to the Questions I have on the Paper. May I therefore have an answer?

The Prime Minister: The procedure of Question and answer is superseded by a full day's debate.

Mr. H. Morrison: Surely my hon. Friend is on a sound point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), is in the same position. There is a whole bunch of Questions on the Order Paper to the Minister of Transport, which he has not answered. He said that the Prime Minister would make a statement. The Prime Minister has made it. I understand that there were 11 Questions on the paper. Surely it is disregarding the rights of the House of Commons and insulting to the House, when the Prime Minister has taken over these 11 Questions, that he is flatly refusing to answer any supplementaries on them.

The Prime Minister: I am offering the House the very great and full advantage of a debate on the whole subject. This in no way derogates from the duty of answering Questions, but I thought that on the whole it would be in the general interest if these Questions, instead of being answered specifically today, were reserved for the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be a White Paper. I need hardly say that the Government have been studying the whole of this question long and carefully. [Laughter.] I hoped that might have to be repeated. The Government have, as I have said, been long and carefully studying this question. We have a White Paper in preparation and the entire structure of the future legislation is also considerably advanced.
However, I am not yet sure whether the White Paper should be included in the debate we are to have on Monday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it would be difficult to include it if it has not been published before the debate. We shall do our utmost to inform the House fully upon this matter. May I say that the


more this question of transport in its present condition after nationalisation becomes the subject of intensive Parliamentary discussion and of public notice, the better we shall be pleased?

Mr. Attlee: Is not the Prime Minister introducing an entirely new practice into this House in suggesting that, because there is to be a future debate, Ministers should be excused from answering Questions? In my experience there have always been numbers of Questions put to Ministers in anticipation of bringing out the points to be raised in debate. Surely it would be a bad thing for someone to say that because we have a debate on, say, the Army Estimates a fortnight hence, he will not answer any Questions?

The Prime Minister: I gladly concede the Parliamentary principle invoked by the Leader of the Opposition. I only thought that on this occasion it would be more in accordance with the wishes of the House—the answers were of a limited and negative character [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to have a general statement and the promise of an opportunity of a full debate.

Captain Ryder: Since I originally asked the Government to intervene under Section 4 of this Act, we have had this important Government statement and this has only created a highly anomalous position in the London area. If we are to wait until Monday for it to be debated, that anomaly will only be continued. May I ask the Prime Minister to give his most urgent attention to the position of London at the present time?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly giving, and the other Members of the Government concerned are giving, their close attention to the question of London. I see that the Leader of the victorious Socialist Party in London is also giving his attention to it, since he is very much concerned about the rise in fares resulting from the administration of the party opposite.

Mr. Jay: As one of those who were denied an answer to an earlier Question by the Minister of Transport, may I ask the Prime Minister, if it is his intention to denationalise road transport, and as he is also restraining the Transport Commission from raising fares, is it the policy of the Government to subsidise the

Transport Commission, or is it not? Secondly—

The Prime Minister: That is a big question.

Mr. Jay: Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he and the Minister of Transport had read the report from the Central Consultative Committee, which had been in their hands for five or six days, when they decided last Tuesday to refer the subject to them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have read the report—

Mr. Jay: But had the right hon. Gentleman done so last Tuesday, when the decision was made?

The Prime Minister: Oh, yes, I am sure I had. As to the very much larger question of whether rail services should be subsidised, that overlooks the fact that for the last three or four years they have been subsidised—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have been subsidised, in fact if not in form, by accumulating a deficit which grows year by year, which deficit is presented only as a matter of book-keeping. It is really a part of the national finances. However, the question of the railways and how they should be enabled to become self-supporting and in proper and true relation with an ever-growing road transport service, is one which might well be ventilated in the debate promised for next Monday.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will bear in mind that fares in London have increased, and if justice is to be done to the travelling public of London compared with the rest of the community, ought not something to be done immediately about the London situation?

The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to do our utmost to protect Londoners, as far as it is possible within the law or within our finances, from the evil consequences they are suffering from the hands of his party.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that all these details are beside the point? The rise in fares and in the cost of living are


entirely due to six years of Socialist philosophy in action, and that the only way to put an end to it all is to denationalise or decentralise the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, have ample opportunities—

Sir W. Smithers: No, I shall not.

The Prime Minister: —of giving vent to his feelings and testifying by actions, which are louder than words, not only in the debate but in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: In view of the deliberate attempt to prevent the British Transport Commission—and particularly the Railway Executive—from paying its way, would the Prime Minister say how he proposes to assist the Commission to do so? Would he also say, in view of his previous observation, whether he proposes to cancel the accrued arrears of the Transport Commission?

The Prime Minister: All that will fit very well into the debate.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask a point on procedure? Could the Prime Minister say whether the Government propose to put down a Motion as a basis for the debate on Monday?

The Prime Minister: I am ashamed to admit that no final decision has yet been taken on that point. However, it would seem to me convenient if we framed a Motion in such a way as—[An HON. MEMBER: "To blame us."]—to enable the party opposite, who are so resolute for the increases in fares, to give a vote in the Lobby when the occasion comes.

Mr. Morrison: Of course, that is a complete misrepresentation. Could the Prime Minister say whether he will take charge of the debate or will the Minister of Transport have something to say?

The Prime Minister: I think it is usual for Governments to have the right and option of decision as to how they will dispose of their speakers in particular debates. I have been led to take a great interest in this question, but I think I would prefer to reserve any decision upon this subject until I see how things go.

Mr. Beswiek: May I get this point clear? Are we to understand that next Monday a definite statement will be made about the policy with regard to the fare increases in the London area; and if by next Monday no policy has been formulated can not we go back to the previous position and put the London passenger on a par with the passenger in the Provinces?

The Prime Minister: I think there ought to be a Motion, and that Motion would be moved, and the speech moving it would give rise to a reply—in fact the debate would proceed in very much the ordinary manner.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the large number of Questions which the Prime Minister has dodged, and in view of the fact that he has suggested that so many topics could be raised next Monday, will he consider giving two days to the debate?

The Prime Minister: I think that question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Paget.

Miss Irene Ward: What about this side?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: I have observed the hon. Lady. Mr. Paget.

Mr. R. T. Paget: In the Downing Street statement there is the statement:
If the commission have not discretion under any existing scheme to carry out the direction, they have the duty under Section 85 to make any necessary application. …
Is not it clear that under the scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal on 27th February they have no discretion at all; that they are obliged in law to charge the rates decided by the tribunal on 1st May, and that the standstill order issued is quite illegal and shall we have some legislation to put that right?

The Prime Minister: Nothing could be better than for the hon. and learned Gentleman to unfold his case in the debate on Monday. I hope I shall not be doing him any injustice if I tell him that my expert information is that he is wrong on both points.

Miss Ward: In order to refresh our memories, may I ask my right hon.


Friend if he will kindly announce the date on which the British Transport Commission applied to the independent tribunal for power to increase the fares?

The Prime Minister: I am told it was the spring of last year.

Miss Ward: Before the General Election.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order. Having addressed two Questions to the Minister of Transport, and as those two questions have not been answered by the Prime Minister, may I ask whether it would be in order if I put down those two Questions again to the Prime Minister for another day later on this week, in the hope they will be answered and so save time now?

Mr. Speaker: It might be a very convenient course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the business for this week?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for consideration today remains unchanged.
Tomorrow we propose to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Housing Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money resolution.
Afterwards, consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme.
The Government have decided to ask the House to consider a time-table Motion for the Committee and remaining stages of the National Health Service Bill on Wednesday. The terms of the Motion will be handed in today and will appear on the Paper tomorrow. In order to give reasonable time for the Motion to be considered, it has been decided to bring forward the Housing Bill previously announced for Wednesday to Tuesday.
On Thursday we shall proceed with the National Health Service Bill, and consider the Motion to approve the MacBrayne Mail Contract.
On Friday, consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week we shall ask the House to consider any Amendments which may be received from another place to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to carry out the procedure under Standing Order No. 41 under which, where there is any proposal for the Guillotine, there should be a Business Committee that meets to consider and specify the allotted time and all the rest of it?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. It is proposed to suspend that Standing Order and for the House itself to settle those details.

Mr. Attlee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the trouble really arises from the fact that he is trying to take a complicated and technical Bill on the Floor of the House instead of upstairs? The debates on it have been very full, and it does raise very important matters which, I think, are much better understood on this side of the House than by the Ministers themselves. It is, therefore, essential that any consideration of the time-table for the Bill should be done very carefully. What is the reason for suspending the Standing Order recently passed in the interests of the whole House—Government, Opposition, back benchers, and everybody? Without giving any reason at all the right hon. Gentleman proposes to suspend it.

Mr. Crookshank: All those matters can be discussed when the time-table is before the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we spent a great deal of time in the Committee on the Bill and have got only one subsection of the first Clause, and he knows the reasons for that.

Mr. Attlee: I know them very well. One of the principal reasons is that the Ministers do not understand their own Bill. Surely there is no reason why, if the right hon. Gentleman knows his case, he should not give us the reason for suspending Standing Order No. 41. Why should we have to wait until Wednesday for that?

Mr. Crookshank: I told the right hon. Gentleman in my first answer that it was proposed that the House itself should settle the time-table, which was always the case in the past, rather than adopt the other procedure.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Do I understand the position to be, Mr. Speaker, that the Government's Motion must be taken in two parts whenever the time arrives for taking it, presumably on Wednesday? Do I understand that there must be a Motion to suspend the Standing Order, and that if that is agreed to by leave of the House then the Guillotine Motion is presented? In other words, we are entitled to two debates. Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the Motion, and I would rather wait until I have. Clearly, the Standing Order would operate unless there was a specific Motion before the House to waive it for that occasion.

Mr. Shinwell: The position, therefore, in regard to the Government's intention to suspend the Standing Order is, I understand, that it cannot be done without the leave of the House and that it can be debated.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Can the Leader of the House say whether he consulted Mr. Speaker before making this statement, in view of the fact that the appointment of the Committee to decide the timetable is in the hands of the Chair, and, indeed, comes into operation before any Motion can be put on the Order Paper at all?

Mr. Crookshank: All the proper steps have been taken.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point? Is it proposed to have one Motion or two Motions? If it is proposed to have only one will the right hon. Gentleman give some time for the House to discuss the question of Privilege, of attempting to incorporate in a business Motion an alteration of a Standing Order of the House?

Mr. Crookshank: I think it will be more convenient if we waited to see what is put on the Order Paper.

Mr. F. Beswick: Further to that point. Mr. Speaker, a moment or two ago you said you had no knowledge of what the Motion was. The right hon. Gentleman said that before he considered this Motion he discussed the matter with you. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman's actual words were, "All the proper steps have been taken."

which, presumably, included a consultation with Mr. Speaker. Might we therefore ask whether, as a result of the consultations that the Government have had with you, Mr. Speaker, it has been decided to put forward one Motion or two Motions?

Mr. Speaker: I have not seen a Motion and the first I have heard of the Standing Order being suspended is this afternoon.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the position to be this, Sir? Is it in your understanding of the procedure, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government intend to move a Motion to suspend the Standing Order, entirely upon the intention to move a Motion on the Guillotine procedure, that that Motion to suspend the Standing Order must be taken by itself? Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is so.

Mr. Bing: Arising out of the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if you were to exercise your duty under Standing Order No. 41 to nominate the five Members to be added to the Business Committee so that in the event of the House deciding not to proceed with the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman we could proceed with all speed to deal with the matter in accordance with the Standing Order?

Mr. Speaker: If the House does not resolve to waive the Standing Order on this occasion, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be no time lost by my slowness in appointing Members.

Mr. Bing: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you have not appreciated the position in which the right hon. Gentleman now finds himself. He is proposing to take on Thursday the next stage of the Bill. If the Motion is only passed on Wednesday it will be impossible for the Business Committee to be appointed and to come to the necessary Resolutions dealing with the matter and to have those printed on the Order Paper and have them circulated. Therefore, if I may respectfully suggest it to you, on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman, it is only fair that you should make your appointment straight away so


that the right hon. Gentleman will not be embarrassed in the event of the House coming to the decision to uphold its Standing Order.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: If, as I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to move the suspension of the Standing Order as a separate Motion, which apparently was not in his mind at first but is now that Mr. Speaker has ruled, it is obvious that the suspension of the Standing Order for a particular piece of business and not for the business of the House as a whole is an extremely serious matter. Obviously, a discussion on that cannot be a purely formal discussion, but is almost certain to take the whole of the day. How, is it possible, therefore, to consider taking the further stages of the National Health Service Bill on Thursday? I think the right hon. Gentleman is deceiving himself. Is it not perfectly obvious that his time-table is now hopelessly out? Is he going to gerrymander the constitution for his convenience?

Mr. Attlee: Does not the question of appointing a Business Committee only arise if there has been a decision to put forward a Guillotine Motion? Therefore, it would be improper, before a Guillotine Motion has been carried, to put down a Resolution suspending the Standing Order, because that would be in anticipation of what had not arisen. Is it not clear that on Wednesday we may discuss the Guillotine and that, whatever happens then, there will have to be another Motion on Thursday?

Mr. Speaker: I think all these things must be considered; but it is quite clear that I have no duties under Standing Orders in relation to the Business Committee until the Motion on the Guillotine has been accepted by the House. Therefore, there is no step I can take until I know the will of the House.

Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that the Housing Bill is being brought forward, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we shall have the Housing Returns for the first quarter to assist us in our discussion of the Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman must ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Bevan: The Housing Bill has been brought forward for the convenience of the Government. I inquired at the Vote Office whether the Housing Returns for the first quarter are yet available and they are not. We ought not to have a debate without having that very important source of information.

Mr. Crookshank: I must point out that it was with the view of meeting the convenience of the Opposition that we changed the debate. It would have been open to the Government to bring the Housing Bill forward on Wednesday and have the Motion on the Guillotine tomorrow, but we thought it would be for the convenience of the House and of the Opposition, in particular, that the order should be reversed. That was done not for the convenience of the Government, but for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has made a statement over the weekend of a highly tendentious nature and we are unable to test the accuracy of that statement until we have the Housing Returns. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Housing Returns will be in the Vote Office tonight? That only leaves us a few hours to consider them, but we ought to have them before us so that we may know to what extent the housing policy of the Government has worked its mischief in the industrial districts.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order there for me.

Mr. John Rankin: Earlier in today's proceedings I addressed a question to the Prime Minister which he suggested I should put to the Leader of the House. I put it to him now. In view of the great many topics which the Prime Minister himself suggested should be raised in the transport debate on Monday will the Leader of the House consider providing two days for that debate to meet the desires of the Prime Minister?

CHINA (BRITISH NOTE)

Mr. Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I should like to make a statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Another one?"] The previous statement was in reply to a Question. If the House will allow me the indulgence I wish to make a statement of some importance.
The House will wish to know that Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking has been instructed to address a Note to the Chinese Government today bringing to their notice all cases of Australian, Canadian, United Kingdom and United States citizens reported to be under detention in China, requesting information about those who have been arrested, the nature of the charges, what sentences, if any, have been passed on them, and their present whereabouts and welfare, and requesting facilities to enable Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires to communicate with them.
Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is in charge of Australian, Canadian and United States interests in China. This step has, therefore, been taken on behalf of and with the approval of the Governments of Canada, Australia and the United States as well as on our own account.
There are believed to be 55 citizens of the countries in question who are at present in gaol. Five of these are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, five of Canada, three of Australia and 42 of the United States. A further 20 United States citizens are reported to be under house arrest.
Others are known to have died in prison, though no satisfactory details have been obtained from the Chinese authorities,

and several have been released in such a poor state of health, due to neglect of their special ailments, that they died shortly after release. The figures given are subject to correction, since in most cases persons under detention have not been permitted to get in touch with their national representative families or friends.
General representations on behalf of those detained were made by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in August last year and the attention of the Central People's Government has repeatedly been drawn to the various individual cases by separate communications. I regret to inform the House that these representations do not so far appear to have effected any improvement in the situation. Hence the Note which Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has been instructed to address today to the Chinese Government.

Mr. Harold Davies: How has the Foreign Secretary had the information that there has been no improvement in the conditions of the people who are either under house arrest or in imprisonment if there has been no real contact with the Chinese People's Government? Secondly, when did the British Government make the first approaches to the Chinese for some rectification and clarification of this position?

Mr. Eden: The first representations were made by the late Government last autumn. We have continued individual representations on various cases, but we felt, in view of the situation as it now is, and its seriousness, that we ought to address a formal Note of protest setting out the whole position, and I very much hope that it will have the effect of allowing our consulate authorities to make representations on the various individual cases.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill intended to continue the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, which itself was continued by the Empire Settlement Act, 1937. It provides in Clause 1 that the Empire Settlement Acts shall be continued for another five years.
I think it might be useful to the House if I recall, as shortly as I can, the history of this legislation. Up to 1914, migration from the United Kingdom was carried on without any assistance from the United Kingdom Government, and it is interesting to note that in 1913, the peak year, emigration amounted to about 285,000. Then, in 1917 and 1918, there was the general feeling that the Government of the United Kingdom should take a more direct interest in migration than hitherto. The only interest which had been taken was an emigration office which existed up to 1914.
In 1917, the first of many committees and commissions on migration suggested that there should be a central migration authority. In 1918 a Government Emigration Committee, which was renamed the Overseas Settlement Committee, was established and the first Government assistance to migration consisted in giving assistance to ex-Service men. In the result, in the three years during which the scheme operated, some 86,000 ex-Service men were assisted with free passages to migrate to parts of the Commonwealth.
The Overseas Settlement Committee, which had been established, made general recommendations, as was its duty, and recommended
That the migration of population from the United Kingdom to other parts of the Empire was calculated to promote the economic strength and the well-being of the Empire as a whole, and of the United Kingdom in particular, provided that the flow at any time was not in excess of what the industries of the United Kingdom could afford to spare or in excess of what the Dominions could conveniently absorb.
I think the House will find that the same two principles run through the reports

and recommendations of the various committees, commissions and conferences of Empire Prime Ministers or officials.
The next conference of importance with regard to this legislation was the Conference on State-Aided Empire Settlement held in 1921 between the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. That Conference recommended that effective co-operation between the United Kingdom and the overseas Governments in a comprehensive policy of Empire land settlement and Empire-directed migration should take place. Later in the same year, 1921, the Conference of Prime Ministers and representatives of the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India took place, and it was the results of that Conference which led to the original Empire Settlement Act, 1922.
The recommendations of this Conference were as follows. The Conference declared itself satisfied that the proposals embodied in the previous recommendation to which I have alluded—namely, the Conference on State-Aided Empire Settlement—were in accordance with their views and were sound in principle, and the Conference of Prime Ministers declared that the several Dominions were prepared,
subject to Parliamentary sanction and to the necessary financial arrangements being made, to co-operate effectively with the United Kingdom in the development of schemes based on these proposals, but adapted to the particular circumstances and conditions of each Dominion.
This Conference expressed the hope that the Government of the United Kingdom would at the earliest possible moment secure the necessary powers to enable it to carry out its part in any schemes of co-operation which might subsequently be agreed on. Finally, the Conference recommended to the Governments of the several Dominions
that they should consider how far their existing legislation on the subject of land settlement, soldier settlement and immigration, may require any modification or expansion in order to secure effective co-operation,
which the Conference wished, and asked the Dominion Governments to work out, for discussion with the Government of the United Kingdom,
such proposals as may appear to them most practicable and best suited to their interests and circumstances.


The result was the first Empire Settlement Act, 1922. That Act was extended in 1937, and it is the object of this Bill to extend that for yet another five years.
Under the original Act of 1922 the Secretary of State was empowered to co-operate with any overseas Government, or with public authorities or public or private organisations, either in the United Kingdom or in any part of the Commonwealth and Dominions, in carrying out agreed schemes for affording joint assistance to suitable persons in the United Kingdom who intended to settle in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Agreed schemes might be either land settlement schemes or schemes for assisted passages, training and the like. Under the original Act, the Secretary of State could contribute up to 50 per cent. and not more than £3 million a year. In the result, between 1919 and 1922, which is the background against which the original Act was passed, the 86,000 ex-Service men had been the only assisted migrants, and they were part of a total of some 484,000 migrants who had left the United Kingdom for other parts of the Empire.
After the Act was passed, the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923 again emphasised the importance of migration. In 1926 the Imperial Conference adopted a resolution which, I think, might interest the House. The resolution said:
The Conference is of opinion that the problem of oversea settlement, which is that of a re-distribution of the white population of the Empire in the best interests of the whole British Commonwealth, is one of paramount importance, especially as between Great Britain on the one hand and Canada, Australia and New Zealand on the other. The Conference notes with satisfaction that the desired re-distribution of population is being accelerated by the policy which has been consistently pursued since its acceptance by the Resolution of the Conference of Prime Ministers in 1921. It endorses the view expressed at that Conference that the policy should be a permanent one. It recognises that it would be impracticable, owing to financial, economic, and political considerations, to promote mass movements of population, but it is satisfied that, by continuous adherence to the present policy, it should be possible steadily to increase the flow of population to those parts of the British Commonwealth where it is most needed for development and general security, and where it will find the greatest opportunities.
As a result of the policy under the original Act of 1922 and the endorsements given to this policy by this and the

other conferences, various schemes operated from 1922 to 1929. I shall not take up the time of the House by going into the schemes in detail. It is sufficient to remind the House that they dealt with testing, training, child migration, Fairbridge farms, and so on. It was in the minds of people at the time that land settlement would play a much bigger part than it in fact did play. The emphasis at that time was on land settlement schemes, but in the result, owing to the very large capital investment required and other difficulties, only 7½ per cent. of the assisted migrants were connected with land settlement and, of the total migrants to the Commonwealth, that proportion amounted only to 3 per cent. I am not drawing any special conclusions on that, but I thought that it would be of interest to the House.
In 1929–30 migration came virtually to an end, not because there was any increase in the inflow into the United Kingdom, but because the outflow—the emigration—dwindled until the inflow was greater than the outflow, so that there was a net intake into the United Kingdom from 1930 up till 1939. In spite of that, the Imperial Conference of 1930 adopted a resolution re-affirming its belief in the general principles and the advantage of migration inside the Commonwealth. They said that they hoped that a considerable flow of migrants from the United Kingdom would come to pass when the economic conditions which were preventing that migration had disappeared.
The House will recall that the 1922 Act was for 15 years, so that by 1937 it was coming to an end. First of all an interdepartmental committee was set up, and then, in February, 1936, the Overseas Settlement Board was appointed. Its terms of reference were:
To consider and advise the Secretary of State upon specific proposals for schemes of migration within the Empire and upon any matter relating to oversea settlement which may be referred to it by him.
The Overseas Settlement Board, as did the inter-departmental committee, recommended the continuance of the Empire Settlement Act. As the expenditure under the 1922 Act of £3 million had never been reached, it was decided that the limit to be put into the 1937 Act should be £1½ million instead of £3 million.
The peak year was 1927, and in that year a total of £1,280,000 was attained; but, if my memory serves me right, during the years when migration was a minus quantity—after 1930—the sums expended were of the order of only £30,000 or £60,000. The Overseas Settlement Board issued a comprehensive report in June, 1938. This report is of interest to those who are concerned with the question of Empire migration. It dealt with the problem of how to strengthen the Empire. It said that it was both difficult and urgent and that its solution depended upon the wholehearted co-operation of the Governments and peoples concerned. It was also of importance, in view of the interest shown throughout the world in the development of the less closely settled countries, that migration should be studied by the countries concerned.
The report went on to state that the position of the overseas Dominions, with relatively thinly populated areas facing a highly competitive world, demanded that the natural increase of population should be supplemented by immigration and that early action should be taken while the United Kingdom was still able to supply migrants. The House will remember that this was against a background of the view of many people that there would be a sharply declining population in the United Kingdom in future. The report noticed this and said that it could no longer be assumed as axiomatic that the migration of large numbers of persons from the United Kingdom to the Dominions was in the interests of the United Kingdom, if those interests could be considered in isolation from those of the Dominions.
The report did not consider them in isolation and added that, in the Board's opinion, no merely theoretical calculations of population movements should be allowed to affect migration policy. We can also notice that the one thing that forecasting of population trends cannot do is to estimate with any degree of accuracy whether there will be a change in the habits of population—such as earlier marriages, increased families and so on—and whatever the position may be with regard to the trends of population, I think we should get universal agreement in saying that the considerations which this House should adopt in considering the problem of migration are the advantages, the well-being and the strength of the Commonwealth as a whole. They

are the considerations which we should apply, and it is in that spirit that the Government recommends this Bill to the House for Second Reading.
Hon. Members may also remember the statement issued in June, 1945, Command Paper 6658 on Migration within the Commonwealth, which starts off by giving various quotations from members of the Coalition Government as to their attitude towards migration. I think I need only remind the House of the statement made on 24th May, 1944, by my noble Friend when he was Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, when he said:
We have made it abundantly clear that, notwithstanding the fact that our own population in these islands is tending, perhaps, rather to decrease than to increase, yet, on broad Imperial grounds, we do feel that we should encourage and assist, as far as is practicable, inter-Imperial migration if that is desired by the Dominion Governments themselves; and, of course, on the assumption—the very necessary assumption—that those Governments and the other Empire countries are prepared to make their own contribution to schemes of assisted migration.
At that time the United Kingdom had put forward proposals for free passage schemes for ex-Service men, rather similar to the 1919 and 1922 schemes. However, as appeared in the White Paper statement, the overseas Governments were—I am sure the House will agree, quite rightly—preoccupied with their difficulties and with the problems of settling and rehabilitating their own ex-Service men and of getting them back on the scarce shipping to their own countries. In the statements on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the White Paper, where the views of the individual Commonwealth countries are set out, it is said that immediate large-scale migration was not possible because of those overriding problems, but that they all looked forward to the resumption of migration when these problems had been got out of the way.
Since the war, the net migration to the Commonwealth has averaged about 70,000 persons a year. I have the details for each year from 1946 to 1951. Taking, say, 1951 and 1950 as two rather different yet typical years: in 1950, the emigration—migration to the Commonwealth countries—was 112,900 and the inflow, which to me was surprisingly large, was 56,000. In 1951, 132,000 people migrated to the Commonwealth and, again, 56,000 came in. Again, that figure was surprisingly large, and—

Mr. M. Follick: When the hon. and learned Gentleman said "came in," does he include migrants who came back?

Mr. Foster: Yes. The statistics do not distinguish between new migrants to this country of, say, original Commonwealth origin and those who came back.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Where did they come back horn? From the Commonwealth or other parts of the world?

Mr. Foster: These figures relate only to the same countries as those for which I have given figures and to which people have migrated.

Mr. Follick: Were there any dissatisfied immigrants?

Mr. Foster: Yes, some. Although the figures have not been separated, the hon. Member probably would agree with my pleasure that a large number of people living in the Commonwealth like to migrate to the Mother country. As we are, perhaps, the most thickly populated Commonwealth country, it is very valuable that we should get a substantial contribution from the members of the Commonwealth to our population. We also know that we and the House have benefited from very prominent members of the Commonwealth. We have, I have just read, six Canadians at present in the House.
It should not be assumed that there is anything but a very small proportion of dissatisfied immigrants. Some, of course, have to return because of a change in family circumstances, and so on, but any snap studies which have been made do not show any large proportion of dissatisfaction. Sometimes a case of dissatisfaction is blown up in the newspapers, but I hope that hon. Members will not deduce that there is any large volume of it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do not those figures also include persons entering this country from the Dominions with the intention of an extended stay but not of permanent settlement here, of which there must be quite a large number?

Mr. Foster: I think that that must be so, but the figures do not include short-time visitors.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Anybody who stays for a year is included in those figures.

Mr. Foster: Yes.

Mr. Follick: Are exchange teachers included?

Mr. Foster: Yes, but if they were here for a year exactly, I do not know on which side they would come.
Probably the House would agree on the general principle that in order to have successful conditions for emigration, it is necessary that we should have a stable and solvent financial condition and that the sterling area as a whole should be financially healthy and in balance, and that the rate of emigration into the overseas Commonwealth countries should be compatible with their financial resources.
It is important to remember in any discussion on emigration the obvious truism that we do not want, and do not intend, to force anyone out of this country and, equally, we do not intend or wish to bring any pressure on any Commonwealth country to receive people whom they do not want.

Mr. Follick: Do the figures which the Minister has given of immigration into this country include only white people?

Mr. Foster: No; no distinction is made.
Again, in this useful debate on emigration, it is obviously a truism also that every immigrant requires a considerable capital investment in the country of receipt. It is very necessary in these times that emigrants to the Commonwealth countries should be assured of employment and decent living standards on arrival. Therefore, in the present state of the sterling area finances, it must be our primary concern to achieve a suitable balance of payments and to concentrate our financial efforts on increasing the productive resources of the Empire. At the same time, suitable emigration may be one of the most efficient methods of increasing that productive capacity and of developing resources which are at our disposal in the Commonwealth. It cannot, however, be unlimited emigration in the sense of disregarding the limitations of the resources of the receiving country. The Government's policy is to encourage and assist inter-Commonwealth migration.
I have said that financial assistance is, obviously, limited by our present circumstances. For instance, the suggestion is often made that we should ease the limitations on the transfer of capital to Canada for would-be migrants. In the present state of our dollar resources, it is, obviously, impossible to give such easement. It would not affect many people, but it would affect a lot of dollars. In other words, 10,000 extra people with 10,000 extra dollars each would amount, if my arithmetic is correct, to 100 million dollars—a large amount of dollars—while adding a comparatively small number of people to Canada.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour will speak at the close of the debate and tell the House what his Ministry are doing in the way of publicity and of assisting overseas Governments in recruitment. Her Majesty's Government will continue to make efforts to meet requests from overseas Governments for the provision of shipping for migrants. The position is now better, but if there are any such requests the Government will do their best to see that any shipping requirements are met.
Her Majesty's Government have also been in touch, both under the previous Administration and now, with the Commonwealth Governments regarding reciprocity in the social services. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will be aware of the negotiations which were taking place during his time in office. At present, negotiation on the exchange of social services and the crediting of the various payments is going on with Australia and New Zealand.
My noble Friend the Secretary of State is prepared to examine any proposals from societies specialising in child migration, and generally speaking, of course, my noble Friend is in close touch with representatives of the Commonwealth countries on the whole subject of migration. Therefore, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is, as I have said, to encourage and promote inter-Commonwealth migration.
Having quoted the remarks of my noble Friend in 1944, I should also like to quote the statement of policy of the right hon. Member for Smethwick when he held the post of Secretary of State

for Commonwealth Relations. On 13th June, 1950, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The solidarity and increasing strength of the Commonwealth depends on the increasing migration of people from this country to those countries who wish to receive our migrants. We must take account of the fact that countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada will in any case be receiving migrants from other than British sources, and it is all the more important that there should be an adequate flow of British migrants to those countries, if they will have them. Our firm policy is to facilitate and to encourage the outflow of all those people who wish to leave these islands, although we cannot compel them to go to the countries who wish to receive them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 99.]
The Government regard migration as a valuable means of maintaining and strengthening the bonds between the members of the Commonwealth, and, with this object in view, are anxious to foster such migration. Our only stipulation is that a fair cross-section of the population should go—not always the youngest and the most skilled: no undue encroachments should be made on the industries where we are short in manpower. The falling off in emigration, on the other hand, would have serious effects in the long run on the Commonwealth.
Since the 17th century the overseas migration of the British people has been greater than that of any other people in the history of the world. It built up the Commonwealth; it established the United States of America. We believe that this continued emigration is vital to maintain the strength and solidarity of the Commonwealth.
The sense of unity which animates, and is the main connecting link between, the self-governing parts of the British Commonwealth is largely dependent on the preponderance of British stock in the population of the Dominions, and it is of the utmost importance, if the sentiment is to be maintained and the political character of the British Empire is to remain what it has been, that the fresh accessions to the population of the Dominions which take place in future years should contain a large proportion of persons of British origin.
The House will notice that those are words taken from the Empire Migration Committee of the Economic Advisory Committee reporting in 1932. Those words remain true today, and the Government subscribe fully to those sentiments. To develop the vast resources of the Commonwealth, we need a healthy economy with substantial savings of


capital to invest in such development. We also need a vigorous, balanced and enterprising emigration of our own people. It is on this basis that I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is wholly inadequate in its scope and urges Her Majesty's Government to take imaginative and decisive measures to set in motion a large scheme of Empire migration on which the economic and political stability of the Commonwealth depends.
The atmosphere in which the House finds itself today cannot be called calm; but I hope that this debate, at least, may prove to be an oasis for us in the desert which we are crossing. Let me say this to my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether they have put their names to this Amendment or whether they have not: I plead that this matter above all else shall not be made an opportunity to beat either this Government, as a Government, or any previous Government as such. This is surely a matter in which we can use the House of Commons in its proper way—that is, as a means of giving advice and expressing our feelings to the Government of the day, pointing out, without fear or favour, shortcomings where we consider them to be.
The first point I wish to make is that certainly I, and, I believe, my hon. Friends, too, have no desire whatever to introduce into this question of migration any form of compulsion. I expect my hon. Friends, as I have, when they have discussed this matter with other people, have had said to them, "Oh, you are the sort of people who want to compel 15 million of us to go to the Commonwealth." That is not true. It will be noted, too, that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary has drawn a distinction between migration and emigration. In the wording of the Amendment he will see that we have carefully used the word "migration" and not "emigration," because the future of the Commonwealth lies in an interchange of the population, and not a flow in any one given direction.
The second point I wish to make is that in this scheme, which, we hope, will develop more and more as the years go on, we are discussing migration only with those whose interests are the same—only with those members of the Commonwealth who desire that migration shall be increased and who desire that its influence shall be extended. The strength of the Commonwealth, of course, lies in the fact that it is extended throughout the four corners of the earth. It is world wide. It is world wide in its conception and it is world wide in its extent. The weakness, of course, is the fact that we have 75 per cent. of our population of all these areas congregated in these islands, which form only just over 1 per cent. of the area.
One has only to look at the density of the population of the various countries to grasp the significance of the immensity of this problem. In Australia the population is about four per square mile—throughout the country; in Canada the density is nine to the square mile; in New Zealand it is 19. One would expect that in the United Kingdom it would be more; it is 540 persons per square mile.
The potentialities not only of Australia and New Zealand but of all other parts of the Commonwealth are enormous. It is with some hesitation that I do so, but I commend hon. Gentlemen opposite to read the editorial in the "Evening Standard" tonight, in which a glimpse of the potential of the Dominion of Canada can be obtained. In that great Dominion, at a time when we are talking about restrictions and closing things down, they are in the process of building a pipeline for oil right across the Commonwealth from the oil fields of Alberta to the Great Lakes. At a time when we are closing the branch lines of our railways they are building a railway from the St. Lawrence to Labrador. All these things are taking place today.
What is the influence of migration as generally planned upon the economy of this country and upon our defence? I do not propose to go into this at all deeply. Many people of varying views and political opinions have expressed themselves as to the economic effect of emigration from this country. We are approximately in these islands about 50 million people. We are able to supply about 50 per cent. of the food which feeds us. The


rest we are obliged to import, and it is the import of that food, and of those other things which go to make our standard of life possible that faces us as an enormous problem—the enormous import-export problem which confronts us today.
So far as defence is concerned, there was, in 1946, a recommendation of the Chiefs of Staff that some form of migration, solely on the grounds of defence, was vital because this country is, above all others in Europe, the most vulnerable. I have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend; at some moments I was more pleased than at others; but let me say to the House that I am conscious that there are enormous difficulties facing us in this problem. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends would attempt to minimise them.
There seems to be, at present, at any rate, a tendency for the figures of migration to decrease. My hon. and learned Friend did not give any figures other than those which we have at present. I appreciate that they are the last figures available, but I should be grateful if the Minister of Labour could give us an idea of the trends.

Mr. J. Foster: The money has decreased, but the actual migration has increased.

Mr. Langford-Holt: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I feared that as the money was decreasing and as the cost of migration was presumably increasing, it meant that there was a vast decrease in the numbers migrating.
Frequently, one hears the expression "mass migration." Obviously, mass migration within a short time is both unrealistic and impossible. We do not seek, and nobody would try—we have not the right to do so—to thrust sections of our population, be they desirable or not so desirable, on to an unwilling member of the Commonwealth. What we seek, and what we ask the Government to do, is to find out the basis of common aim between ourselves and the various Dominions of the Commonwealth, who are seeking the whole time to increase their populations for reasons of their own.
What we want to know is how long are we in this country to tolerate a situation, and how long can we afford

a situation, in which we have an annual increase of population of something over 300,000 and, at the same time, a decrease in the agricultural land available of something over 50,000 acres a year. This is a matter to which the Government would do well to direct their attention. How long is that process to be allowed to continue?
I still have a feeling that the Government have not fully made up their minds, and I would ask them seriously to decide exactly what they intend to achieve. For example, have they decided—and it is not for us to decide without the available figures—how many people it is desirable, for purely economic and administrative reasons, should migrate, and within what period. What size of population is most suited to this island? All these are matters which I and my hon. Friends feel should be discussed by the Government with the Commonwealth Governments as a matter of urgency and at the highest level possible.
The White Paper on migration which the Under-Secretary reintroduced to the House, Cmd. 6658, was either the last document that the Coalition Government produced or it may have been produced—there is no indication on the document—as a result of the Coalition Government but actually by the Caretaker Government. I found that this document was most unenlightening and not very helpful on the subject. It gave no indication of exactly what the present Government seek or what the previous Government or, indeed, the one before that, sought.
The Commonwealth countries of the Empire have stated—it has been said by their leaders and also by less distinguished members of their communities—that, above all else, what they want is people. I think we in this country should remember that those countries, by the very forces of nature, must get people. I suppose it is a truism to say that it is very easy to poison a thirsty horse, and those parts of the Commonwealth are extremely thirsty for population at the moment. None should understand better than we in this country the difficulties which those countries are going through in order to achieve an increase in population. One of the most important principles in migration which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned is the fact that it must be by cross-section. It is not


good enough to export or allow to drift away from these shores all the best and youngest in the land. Such a policy would be disastrous to this country. We must realise exactly where we stand at the moment in this respect.
What I consider to be the first shortcoming of this Bill is the fact that it facilitates the very thing we do not wish to happen. It facilitates those who are prepared to overcome obstacles to get abroad, to migrate, while it does not envisage a whole plan of migration to the countries of the Commonwealth. It also does a thing which appeals to me, although it may not appeal to the Government: it gives Governments a sense of achievement to which I do not think they are entitled. There is that feeling that whenever this question of migration comes up, a Minister may say, "Oh, but we have got the Empire Settlement Act on the Statute Book and everything is going nicely." But we should go a little deeper than that.
Thirdly, the Bill does not in any way fire the imagination of Governments of this country or of the Commonwealth or of people who are seeking to migrate. What this Bill does is to say, "If you want to migrate, whoever you may be, if you know where you want to migrate and if you are prepared to overcome any number of obstacles and frustrations, then the Government may, in certain circumstances, pay up to 50 per cent. of the expenses of your passage." My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the fact that the money available was cut down in 1937 from £3 million to £1½ million. He mentioned that this sum has never yet been reached. I do not think that is a matter on which the Government can congratulate themselves.
I think the Government can be censured for the fact that they have not brought properly before the people who might be interested the ideals and objects for which the Bill provides. The Amendment does not propose any large scheme of mass migration in a short period. What we wish is that the Government shall be seized of a sense of urgency in this matter and shall be conscious of the vast importance which we attach to it.
As to those of us who have put our names to the Amendment, we have asked first that Her Majesty's Government

should speak with one voice, and clearly. It has been very difficult for anybody to understand exactly what is the Government's view. Only a few weeks ago I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he would appoint a Royal Commission to study this question, and his reply was that he thought this matter should be dealt with by families and groups of families.
With that I entirely agree, but my right hon. Friend then added a phrase which I did not at the time understand, and I am not quite sure what it means now. He said that he thought it better that we should all stay and fight it out together. I hope that the Prime Minister will take the earliest opportunity of clarifying his personal position on this whole question, because it is most ambiguous at the moment. I hope that the Government will speak with one voice.
If we are, as a Commonwealth, to accept the fact that slowly, as the years go on, we are to drift further and further apart, then I think we are quite right to say, "We must all stay in this island together and we will put up the best show possible"; but if, as I believe, it must be the object of each one of us to see that the whole Commonwealth draws itself closer and closer together, then I think we must think not of being one island or unit inside the Commonwealth but must regard the whole Commonwealth as a single unit.
If one may make any further recommendation to Her Majesty's Government, it is this: I suppose that at present there are at least four partners of State—the Home Office, Commonwealth Relations, the Ministry of Labour and, I suspect, somewhere in the background, the Colonial Office—all interested in the subject of migration and rightly interested in it. I would ask the Government whether they would consider having one Minister responsible for the whole question. It has been put forward as desirable that there should be a Commonwealth conference on this matter; though I do not myself press the Government to accept that view. What I said earlier, and I repeat, is that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will put this matter on a very much higher level than it appears to have been for a great many years.
Finally, there is the question of information. Hon. and right hon. Members will probably have received inquiries from constituents as to how they should go about migration. I have had these inquiries. It is an astonishing fact that people who do inquire think that they might like to emigrate, but are not quite sure whether they are doing right or wrong, who to ask, where to ask, or how to go about it. It is this question that I am asking the Government to help us, in our own interests and the interests of the Commonwealth, to solve. I think that it is most important that Her Majesty's Government should, on behalf of themselves and those Governments that preceded them, show a change of heart in their approach to this matter.
Our forefathers handed down to us a heritage which we would do well to keep and preserve, and we are responsible for what we pass on to our children and grandchildren. One thing is certain: we can either go forward or sink back into disintegration, and if we sink back we shall not be given the opportunity to start again.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I beg to second the Amendment.
I ask the Government either to ask the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to join with us in a searching inquiry into the whole question of migration, considering its political, economic and social aspects, or, if they feel they cannot do that, to have bilateral discussions on this matter.
I think we should admit that only too often when we talk about migration the general public believe that the speaker has a feeling that this country is no longer fit to live in. What nonsense that point of view is. I am in favour of emigration and the study of emigration because I believe it is right that we should help our sister countries of the Commonwealth to develop their resources and develop them quickly.
Let us realise that very big political decisions are involved—political decisions that have to be made not only by us here at Westminster but by our colleagues in the Parliaments of the Dominions. Before we make these decisions, we have to have the facts on which to make them. That is why I want a study made of this problem.
Too often we hear pleas for a Royal Commission on a subject, or an inquiry of the status of a Royal Commission when all the facts are well known and what is needed is a policy decision. What I am asking for is something different. Very few of the facts are known to us, and we and our colleagues in the Parliaments overseas are in danger of making pronouncements and decisions entirely on emotional grounds. Nothing is more useless than some half-baked scheme which sounds well after a good lunch at a Chamber of Commerce. Even more dangerous are those who do not think at all about this matter and are content to talk in slogans.
We have had one extreme, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) pointed out—the "Let us stay here and fight it out" school. The prime offender in this is the Prime Minister His emotional approach was valuable in 1940—let us stay in this "tight little island" and "up with the drawbridge." But today this implies that an emigrant is no more than a deserter. That is the kind of emotional approach that is wrong and gets us nowhere. At the other extreme, we have people who say, "We are overcrowded; we must migrate to our Colonies." These slogans harm our Commonwealth relations. "We" in this country are overcrowded and therefore "our" Colonies must do something about it. The choice of words alone is enough to undo decades of good work at the Commonwealth Relations Office. It is rather like what was heard so often in a magistrates court before the war, when the chairman would say to a young offender in the dock, "There must be some good in you; why don't you join the Army or go to the Colonies."
I submit that we must not look at this matter primarily as a United Kingdom problem, either of over-population affecting our standard of living, or of over-concentration of people in a small island in the atomic age. I would have nothing to do with this if I thought that it was merely a "Let us get away from the atomic bomb" attitude. I am sure that other hon. Members share that view. As it is, there is no conceivable scale of migration which could make any substantial difference to the fact that this island has 50 million people on it in a small area.
We cannot, however, ignore two facts. One was mentioned by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury—the advice of the Chiefs of Staff in 1946 to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, as published in "The Times"; and the other, that the United Kingdom carries a population supportable, as many people think, only in conditions of her holding almost world industrial monopoly. As Sir John Russell said at the British Association meeting in October, 1948,
Gone are the days when it was possible to exchange one or two hours of industrial labour for a hundred or more of agricultural labour.
I am asking that this matter be considered primarily from the point of view of our duty—that is to say, the duty of the white race as a whole and particularly the British community of nations—to make the best use of the areas of the world that we control. We have been given great advantages, and it is our duty to develop to the best of our ability the resources that we control.
In recent times in Western countries the political struggle has broadly been between the "haves" and the "have-nots." In the international field it is still that struggle, and it is still unresolved. Let us not forget that the disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is even greater internationally than it is in the nation itself in Western countries. Not long ago on the Adjournment I advocated, as I do now, discussions between Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and deliberately omitted the three Asiatic Dominions.

Sir Ian Fraser: I am sure the hon. Member does not mean to leave out South Africa.

Mr. de Freitas: I do mean to leave out South Africa. Perhaps I might explain why. I believe that, as history has shown, until we are all as Christian as we would like others to be, the settlement of different races together has not worked smoothly enough.

Mr. Follick: Is my hon. Friend speaking of races or religions?

Mr. de Freitas: There are at least two different peoples in South Africa, the Africans and the white people. I am deliberately not mentioning South Africa.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that South Africa is a Christian country—none more so?

Mr. de Freitas: I chose my words rather carefully. I am not advocating discussions with South Africa because I believe that until—these are the words I used—we are all as Christian as we would like others to be, it has been proved that the settlement of two races alongside each other has great difficulties. I will not put it higher or lower than that. I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) about the policy of South Africa.

Mr. Peter Smithers: This is of great importance. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people should emigrate from this country only to a territory which is exclusively or nearly exclusively white in its population?

Mr. de Freitas: I hope not to be controversial about this. I have had opportunities in other forms for being so. I am saying that we in the United Kingdom should have discussions with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which I hope to show are the three countries which need people to develop them and which can get people from this country to do so, and they are also countries of white settlement.

Mr. Follick: rose—

Mr. de Freitas: If I may develop my point I might answer what is in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick). I was saying that on the Adjournment I had advocated discussions with these three countries. It was pointed out to me afterwards that this emphasis on migration to those countries from this country and not from the Asiatic countries might be one of the steps inducing the three Asiatic countries to leave the Commonwealth because they felt that they were out of it. I do not share that view. I have talked with people from the three new Dominions, and I find that that view is not held by them.

Mr. Follick: Turning again to the question of South Africa, does not my hon. Friend agree that an influx of people from the United Kingdom into South Africa would counterbalance the Boer influence in that part of the world?

Mr. de Freitas: We could have a most interesting debate on that, and I have views on the subject, but I am anxious to concentrate upon advocating discussions with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and I hope my hon. Friend will excuse me if I try to take the House along on that point.
In spite of what has been mentioned to me about the three Asiatic Dominions, certainly should not be here advocating discussions with the three other countries only if I thought for a moment that it would lead along the road towards having the three Asiatic countries out of the Commonwealth. I regard their presence in the Commonwealth as the greatest possible link between the East and the West and a force which may shape the destiny of this country and of Europe in the decades to come.
Nor would I advocate migration on any scale from this country if I thought that by de-population we should so weaken ourselves as the leading power in the Commonwealth and the second leading power in the free world that our influence would in any way be diminished. I regard sudden changes of influence as difficult for the nations of the world to balance. For example, the sudden great wealth and power of the United States today makes it hard to adjust her into the political organisation of the world.
Incidentally, the development of the United States, the rise in her production and the increase in her wealth, have been directly due to her policy of large-scale immigration. Raw materials were there, but they would have been useless without the millions of men and women who went there to work. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that at the end of the Civil War there were only 30 million people in the United States and the Confederate States together. Yet people alive at that time lived to be citizens of a country of 150 million people. The immigration was gigantic. At some stages it reached a million people a year. We can compare that with the figures for 1950 for Canada, with a population of 14 million, of an immigration of 74,000; Australia, with 8 million population, 180,000 immigration; and New Zealand, 2 million population, 18,000 immigration.

Mr. James Johnson: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. He has been making

a comparison with Australia. One-third of Australia's area is total desert and two-thirds of it has an annual rainfall of less than 10 inches. It is hardly fair to compare an immigration of over 100 million people into the U.S.A. with immigration into a country like Australia.

Mr. de Freitas: I assumed that all hon. Members knew that. I did not think it necessary to point out that Australia has vast barren areas, although I shall have something to say even about that in a moment.
I have stressed the need for a study of the problems because so little work has been done in this field. But we do not need any study to know that raw materials are lying undeveloped in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and that there are millions of people in the United Kingdom who are ready and willing to emigrate, are adventurous, skilled and industrious, and would make good citizens.
Although I have travelled to many parts of the world, I have never visited Australia. But I have read about it. I was recently reading a book by Mr. R. G. Casey, "Double or Quit," in which he gives two striking examples of the natural resources at present undeveloped in Australia. One was the Burdekin River, which drains an area larger than England and Wales; typical of rivers and countries of that climate, the valley is sometimes barren and is then in enormous flood. Mr. Casey estimated that if a scheme could be devised for harnessing the water—it would be gigantically expensive, as all such schemes are—instead of periods of drought and flood there would be 250,000 acres of irrigated pasture which could be used for fattening cattle as well as tens of thousands of acres of irrigated land for growing cotton. Mr. Casey also gave the illustration of the Blair Atholl coal seam of 200 million tons of first-class coal in the same State, the seam being between 50 and 90 feet thick, and not buried in the bowels of the earth but lying on top of the earth ready to be dug up by any modern excavating machinery. If the British community of nations do not develop those resources, others will do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) referred to the barren areas of Australia. They are huge. But we must not forget that many


parts of the areas that we call barren would support Asiatics at a higher standard of life than they have in Asia today. We must not forget that every day the world population increases by 60,000 to 70,000 people, approximately the population of my constituency, and nearly all this increase is of Asiatics. Incidentally, I believe the average annual increase of population in Australia has been just about that figure for the last 50 years.
Let us recognise this. On what moral basis can we deny the development of these resources if the white races do not do it themselves? We have reached a stage in most civilised countries where private property must now be used in the public interest. The public conscience demands it. It is not a long step before the public conscience within a nation becomes also the public conscience within a community of nations. Already no one in this country thinks of allowing the law of supply and demand to operate as it did not long ago, so that rice could be brought from countries liable to famine and thrown at a wedding reception and washed away down the drain.
I have already spoken of Australia. New Zealand differs from Canada and Australia. Although it needs immigrants, as far as I have been able to study the problem, it has not the same abundant natural resources as have Canada and Australia which need people to develop them. As for Canada, I see the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) here, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) will want to speak on that, and therefore I shall leave that subject.
There is a point which can properly be put to us constitutionally. What right have we in this Parliament to discuss the economic development of these sovereign countries, even though they are our sister nations in the Commonwealth? I was careful to base my argument on the need for the development of these overseas countries. However, this country is still the centre of the Commonwealth, and I believe that it is our duty as Members of Parliament to discuss matters which we believe will strengthen the Commonmealth as a whole. Many matters of Commonwealth concern are debatable in

the sense that men of good-will agreeing with nine-tenths of another's views can disagree—for instance, whether the Union of South Africa being in the Commonwealth is an asset or a liability. But it is certainly not debatable that the strengthening of the Commonwealth by developing the resources of the overseas Dominions is of itself a great advantage to the free world.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: We are listening with very great interest to the hon. Member, but I hope he will not bring South Africa in again. I know that he raises it hypothetically, but we ought not—

Mr. de Freitas: I did not bring it in.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman said that it could be argued whether or not South Africa was a country which it was wise to have in the Commonwealth. I urge him to think what this will read like in the South African newspapers.

Mr. de Freitas: I am so sorry. I was careful not to do it, but the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale brought in the subject of South Africa. I was most reluctant to be drawn into a discussion of it. It will be within the memory of the House that I chose my words carefully and tried hard not to bring South Africa into the discussion. I mentioned it only because I thought that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale was about to intervene again. I was trying to ask him not to bring it into the discussion because I wanted to concentrate on what we all agree upon.

Sir I. Fraser: This seems to me vitally important. If the hon. Member takes a personal view in this matter and feels so deeply about it that he must point to South Africa by excluding it—that is what he did in the early part of his speech—might one not at least ask that it be made clear from the Opposition that any policy of excluding South Africa from discussions of Empire, Commonwealth or migration matters would not be the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition?

Mr. de Freitas: What I will make clear is this. Certain hon. Members interested in the subject of emigration to the Commonwealth got together and decided to try to have a non-party debate on the subject. It was also decided, in some cases tacitly and in some expressly, that


we would do everything we could to make this a debate without reference to South Africa, because controversy on South Africa might easily have arisen in view of recent decisions and discussions in this House. For that reason I did not venture to express any opinion. It was only the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale who ventured one. I have said that for various reasons I do not want to discuss it, and I now say it is a debatable point. What is not debatable is that a strengthening of the Commonwealth itself would be in the interests of the free world.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. de Freitas: I have been a little longer than I meant to be through no fault of my own. I will conclude by asking the Under-Secretary of State to consider having the inquiry for which I have asked, because there are so many things on which we have no information and of which no study has been made. The very fact that I have to mention these items for the agenda shows how little work has been done. The most elementary fact which should be worked out is where the money is to come from. I have mentioned gigantic dams. Who will pay for them? Again, is it not a fact that the emigration from this country of one skilled man represents at least £1,000 of investment going abroad?
Another point arises where overseas countries are recruiting for agricultural work. Is it really right for them to choose only agricultural workers? I have seen areas in Africa, and have had pointed out to me areas in North America, which are like Australia, where it is claimed that soil erosion has come about because men worked the soil in the same way as they worked it in the very different soil and climate of this country. Therefore, might it not be better for men here who know nothing about agriculture to go there and be taught the job in that new country?
Again, I have in my hand a telegram from Australia which reads as follows:
Your action urging increased migration from Britain as reported Melbourne Herald has strong public support here. Suggest you follow up British textile manufacturers with view them transporting Australia entire plants with employees.
What are the economics of that? An important body of Australians sent me

that telegram but, as far as I know, there has been no study of the economics, apart from anything else, of such a migration.
In the earlier discussion on statistics our import of brains was mentioned, but have we not also to look at the problem of the export of brains? Are Canada, Australia and New Zealand large enough to keep at home most of their outstanding young citizens? Does not the fact that they have smaller populations allow the United States and the United Kingdom to attract disproportionate numbers?
So many facts are completely unknown that we are in grave danger of deciding this matter and making pronouncements upon it on emotional grounds. We need a careful study of it. One thing alone is clear, that it is only by making the best use of the people and the land of the Commonwealth that we can develop our strength so that the Commonwealth can assert its great influence for good in the world.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: In rising to address the House for the first time, I should like to express my appreciation of the warm welcome and help which is given by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the new Parliamentary recruit. I was told, and I suppose we all were, that joining Parliament is like one's first term at school, but that seemed to me to be most inexact analogy, for it is surely a strange school where the masters and prefects get all the bullying and the new boys all the privileges.
I have sat in this Chamber through many hours during my period of incubation, and I heard things said in public which would never be repeated outside in private. In that habit the House, to its credit, seems to differ from any other community of human beings I have ever experienced. But the tolerance and the indulgence which it habitually extends to all those who are making their maiden speeches without malice or conceit arouses my gratitude, and it gives me the confidence I so badly need on this formidable occasion. I trust that I shall not abuse it.
The subject which we are debating this afternoon seemed to me very suitable for a maiden speech, for it is one


in which I have long been interested and one which is not likely to arouse great antagonisms between myself and hon. Members opposite. Nobody would dispute the advantages of a British Commonwealth in which all resources and land were fully developed and utilised for the benefit of all mankind. If, as I believe, we should do our utmost to see this brought about primarily by a British population, then I think no time is better than the present to set on foot those long-term plans which are so necessary, and no persons are better suited to do it than my right hon. Friends who form Her Majesty's present Government.
The shortage of manpower in the Dominions, and particularly the two larger Dominions, has never been greater than now. Since the end of the war we have had constant appeals from the Dominions to expand their population and expressions of their desire to draw their new blood primarily from these islands. That is not happening. What we are seeing, for instance, in Australia, which is proud to have 96 per cent. of her population of British stock, is that she has taken in 600,000 immigrants since the end of the war and only one-third of them are of British extraction.
At the same time we have seen in this country a great upsurge in the willingness of our own people to emigrate. A recent Gallup Poll came to the remarkable conclusion that one British family in three are willing and eager to take up their roots from this country and replant them in the overseas Dominions. From the small seaport of Christchurch, in my own constituency, three young men departed last year in a 28-foot boat to make their way to Tasmania, and they have successfully arrived there. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt be able to add to that example from their own experience.
It is not necessity or land hunger which drives these people overseas. They are not going now, as they did once, as refugees, as charity children or even as colonists. They are going because they see overseas new opportunities which perhaps do not exist here, and because they already feel an instinctive sense of kinship with those who have gone in the past and laid the foundations of the populations in the Dominions today.
These two naturally converging aims, the desire to emigrate and the desire for emigrants have been kept apart not so much by the physical difficulties of transport and housing, for we have seen in the example I have quoted from Australia that foreigners have been able to overcome these difficulties, and surely we can equally well overcome them if we have the will behind us. I believe that these converging aims have been kept apart by the apparent indifference of recent Governments at home, and by the lack of any common Commonwealth policy which is apparent to the world at large.
I am not asking for any mass-emigration policy. I do not believe that any policy of emigration should be founded upon something which appeals more to the dramatic than to one's own good sense. It would be very foolish to try to export whole communities of people together with their factories, and on no account should anybody be forced to go, as any hon. Member will readily agree if he can envisage the disappearance almost overnight of his entire constituency. In any case, emigration on such a scale would fall as an intolerable strain on our economy and the economy of the Dominion. Perhaps 500 years of British history can be crammed into 100 years of Dominion history, but it cannot be crammed into 10 years.
The rate of emigration I have in mind, and which is supported by many outside groups such as the Migration Council, is the migration of 10 million or 15 million people spread over the next 50 years, or about double the rate of emigration over the past century. That is a rate of loss which we in this country could afford to lose with advantage, and a rate of gain which the Dominions could easily absorb.
Nor should we press for any great increase in the grants from State funds to intending emigrants. Emigration aided by the State is in many ways the worst type, for in times of stress such an emigrant will look to his old or to his new Government for further help. The man who uproots himself and his family and transplants himself is starting with a capital of determination which is much better than any grant which we may be able to give him from State funds. Indeed, it is not necessary for us to ask


for any more funds than those already allowed under the Empire Settlement Act, and I suggest that that money should be used more for propaganda and, perhaps, for assisted passages than for any attempt to settle migrants upon the lands of our dominions.
When this subject was first discussed, those who framed the Act and first operated it were thinking very largely in terms of land settlement—the most expensive form of migration yet known; but now we have passed beyond that phase. We have passed beyond the stage of pioneering into a stage when we should think of the possibilities of developing the resources and raw materials of this great Empire. Surely, it should be left, if I may use the expression from these benches in a maiden speech, to private enterprise, not aided by State funds, but relying upon their own initiative and determination, to develop these resources. The State should act as the lubricant and the stimulant to these private operations, but no more.
I therefore ask the Government to encourage by every means possible a policy of emigration. In the past, their attitude has been one of a lukewarm divorce. "We do not want to lose you," they have said, in effect, "and we think you should not go. If you must go we cannot stop you, but we will not give you any further assistance beyond as small a grant of alimony as we decently can." Such lack of encouragement amounts to strong discouragement.
It has been left to the propaganda of small societies and the distant pull of the magnets within the Dominions themselves to move the inertia of the great mass of people who could be induced to go if only they saw the opportunity and if the Government at home would encourage them to go. An idea can be sown or it can be planted. At present, the idea is broadcast with little chance of germination. Only the British Government can plant this idea in the minds both of our own people and of the Dominions overseas. They alone have the authority and the position to inaugurate an emigration policy which is a national and an Imperial policy. They alone have the power and the authority to provide a service by which they could collect, sift and then disseminate information through a recognisable Government Department. At the moment it does not exist.
The British Government alone have the power to break through the bottleneck of transport and accommodation by, for instance—I throw out this suggestion—providing each migrant family with a prefabricated house to take with them. Finally they alone have the power to induce, perhaps, by preferential treatment, British industry to set up or to expand within the Dominions and so absorb the new population as it arrives.
As a first step, I suggest that the Government should call another Dominions conference to discuss all these matters. I am well aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are against such a full and general discussion and would like to see these matters talked out individually and bilaterally between the United Kingdom Government and the different Governments of the Dominions interested. I object to this, however, and for two reasons.
First, it is necessary that the general principles of priorities, quotas, transport, accommodation and reciprocal social service benefits should be settled first at this general conference; and then we can work out the details individually between the United Kingdom and the separate Dominion Governments. The second reason is even more important. By adopting hole-in-the-corner methods, we should lose the value of the publicity which would be given if the whole Commonwealth, or those parts of it that are interested in receiving migrants, get together and put into practice the suggestion that there has been a change of heart, which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) talked about, and emphasise that we intend to realise the full value of what we are now embarking upon. There is no question whatever that if we fail to take action now, the time may come, perhaps, in 50 years or fewer when, faced, perhaps, by national insolvency or another war, we shall regret the day when we did not see the importance of this subject.
I remind the House that the Empire Settlement Act arose originally from the Dominions Conference of 1921, and that that conference was, in turn, gathered from all the corners of the Empire to discuss these matters in the same way as I am suggesting that they should be recalled to discuss them now. They look to the United Kingdom, both as the leader


of the Commonwealth and also as the home of the bulk of the people whom they wished to attract, for a lead and for an example.
In 1917 the Dominions Royal Commission, which did so much by way of founding the ideas upon which the Act was based, gave it as their opinion that:
Of all the problems which lie before Imperial statesmanship, none is more important and none more fascinating than that of migration. Its successful organisation lies at the root of the problem of Empire development, and largely upon it depends the progress of the immense territories of the Dominions and the increase of power of the Empire as a whole.
Have we been worthy of, or have we lived up to, those high aspirations of 35 years ago? I do not think that we have and for that reason I trust that on this occasion, which is the second renewal of the Empire Settlement Act, we will seize these opportunities and not live to regret another wasted chance.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that we have listened to a very competent and very interesting speech by a new boy who has certainly well earned the extraordinary privileges which, he says, are paid to new boys. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) has shown that he has already admirably got the manner which is much liked by the House of Commons and that he can marshal his facts and his arguments. He has spoken in a manner worthy of his very distinguished father, and I assure him that the House will want to hear from him very often in the future.
I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and others who have tabled the Amendment, not that I agree with it—in fact, I disagree with it and will give my reasons—but because it gives an opportunity to discuss in a general way a matter of very great importance, to which I gave a great deal of attention when I was in office, but which would not otherwise be in order. I assume that the Amendment will be withdrawn, because we certainly will want to support the Bill.
I should like to start with one or two remarks about the general problem of migration, which is a much more difficult problem than is often thought, and to express my disagreement with the two basic arguments which are often used on this matter and which seem to me to underlie the Amendment and which certainly were used by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, and both of which seem to me to be dangerous and misleading arguments.
First—the hon. Member for Shrewsbury did not put a great deal of stress upon this, but it is often used—is the argument that we must for strategic reasons disperse everything from these islands—men, machines, factories and everything else.

Mr. Langford-Holt: I purposely laid very little stress upon that. I referred only in one sentence in passing to the representations of the Chiefs of Staff, and I left it at that.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Chiefs of Staff, of course, are very important people, and I know this argument. I prefaced my remarks by saying that the hon. Member did not lay much stress on the point. The strategic argument, although there is some weight in it, cuts both ways. If we had a sudden and drastic weakening of democratic power in the West, there would be a great danger to peace and to the Commonwealth. We must cling to the position that a strong Britain is essential for the welfare and safety of the Commonwealth.
But there was another argument, and on this the hon. Member did lay rather more stress—the argument which I might call that of emptying Britain—that we have so many people and are so densely populated here that we must distribute them in less densely populated parts overseas. I do not think, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) said some people seem to, that a migrant is a traitor. Of course, a migrant to any part of the Commonwealth is in no sense lost to us; he in any case remains one of the family.
However, the United Kingdom is itself a part of the Commonwealth, and it also needs population. Its population needs must be regarded as much as those of any other part of the Commonwealth, and we need all our hands and skill to earn our living today. If this country is well


run its great problem will be a shortage of labour, not a surplus. I am not ashamed to say that I think the British in Britain are very good Britons and there are not enough of them in the world.
Many people who argue for large scale migration seem to be thinking much more of other people migrating than themselves, which is a certain comment on their policy. It seems to me that if we were not a member of the Commonwealth but a country all on our own in the world, we should not want any emigration at all. If we were an isolated country we would want an increased population, and it is only because we are a member of the Commonwealth that we have a duty to encourage emigration from this to other parts of the Commonwealth.
I start from the assumption that migration is vital because we are a part of the Commonwealth and it is essential to the prosperity, the trade, the strength of the Commonwealth and the spiritual ties of the Commonwealth. But we must consider in this matter the Commonwealth as a whole, including the United Kingdom which too often is excluded from these considerations. Therefore, there must be some limit and we should not vaguely ask for a maximum migration, as I think the Amendment does, but an optimum migration in the general interests of the Commonwealth as a whole.
There is no more annoying talk for British ears—and one hears a certain amount of it—than that to the effect that taking people from this country to other countries is a kindness to this country. This is a joint Commonwealth activity, that imposes burdens on all, and it is for the benefit of us all. When I say that it is a joint Commonwealth undertaking, I do not mean that it is a common one, and I must disagree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch who in his maiden speech advocated the holding of a conference on this matter. Different Commonwealth countries have very different views about it.
I doubt very much if Canada would want to discuss its problem of migration from this country with others, and in South Africa it is to some extent a question of internal politics. Migration in the Commonwealth is by no means limited to these islands. There are great problems of migration in other parts of the

Commonwealth, for example Indians going to Ceylon, and very elaborate and complex problems of migration, and it would lead to great confusion if we tried to solve them all by a conference.
The right way, not a hole in the corner way, is by two-sided talks between ourselves and the Commonwealth countries concerned. I think that many of the criticisms levelled at the present Government, and by implication at the previous Government, on this matter are ill-founded and unjust. The main impediment to emigration since the war has been at the other end—lack of housing—something over which we have no control. The only impediment we have imposed is on the Canadian dollars, which was much criticised by the Opposition when we were in office. Not so much is heard of it now, although it was restated by the Under-Secretary. I think it is an impediment and very unfortunate. It would be much easier for migrants if they had a lump sum. I can say this now, but I could not say it in office in public. I can never understand why Canada cannot make an advance in dollars with a given security and charging interest against repayment over four years. They would be giving a lump sum to start with.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Is it not a fact that in certain cases the £1,000 allowed for a period of four years can be taken as a lump sum?

Mr. Gordon Walker: That is by permission of the Treasury here, but in the remaining cases, at the Canadian end, it could be advanced in dollars against repayment to the Canadian authorities over four years.

Mr. Baxter: When I was in Canada two or three years ago and was talking to some Ministers of the Government, they were very much in favour of that. I think that if it had been pressed when the right hon. Gentleman was in power he would have found them much more receptive than he thinks.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It would be most improper to put pressure on the Canadian authorities, although I did not miss opportunities to put forward views. One puts forward views and they are either listened to or not.
I think that some criticism can be made of British Governments, and I must frankly admit that this applied to the Government of which I was a member. We need a much more careful and consistent study of this problem than we have had the time to give to it. As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury pointed out, there is no single Minister responsible. Commonwealth Relations, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office are all concerned. I suggest that the Minister in charge ought to be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in order to make it clear that we are putting our whole emphasis on emigration to and within the Commonwealth. Statistics we have to deal with are excessively defective.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who replies will give his mind to this matter, although obviously he cannot give undertakings straight away. For example, we only record emigration by sea and not by air, and some Commonwealth countries are not distinguished but lumped together with others, and we have no real attempt made to get at net migration. Commonwealth visitors who come to this country and go back count as migrants from this country, completely confusing the whole picture. There is no way of knowing how many are returned emigrants and how many original citizens of the country from which they have come.
It would be useful to have some figures of ages in order to consider the question of the cross-section of the population going out of the country. I well know, because I tried a lot of these things, that there are many difficulties and objections and one cannot get perfection, but I have no doubt that we could get more effective statistics which would help the Government to form opinion and get a clearer picture.
The Government ought to get a clearer picture of the objectives. I spoke of the need for an optimum migration, and that means some attempt to get a figure. Unless we get a figure at which we are aiming, we cannot really have a sensible discussion about this matter. It is no use having airy generalisations. We can only fix the figure if we fix the need here and the need at the receiving end.

The countries wanting British people, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, have a rate of increase which is nothing like as great as many people think. Everyone gets exaggerated ideas about migration. The intake of migrants involves a very large intake of capital expenditure. For instance, Southern Rhodesia has just had to reduce the amount of money spent on immigrants because of the capital investment problem in that country.
It seems that about 2 per cent. per annum increase for a country which is increasing its population is about as great as it can bear. That was stated by the Royal Commission on Population. Those countries want about 230,000 immigrants a year to keep up a rate of 2 per cent. per annum. Against that we have to set what the United Kingdom can afford and expect to send, and people must bear in mind the consequences of the things they advocate. If we met a third of that need—75,000—it would be one-tenth of all people reaching 20 every year in this country. I think we could send rather more than 75,000, because we shall not only send people under 20 but a cross-section. I agree that it is important that it should be a cross-section. I also agree that it is not enough of a cross-section, but that there is too much selective emigration. We must insist on this very much more strongly in the discussions with the Commonwealth countries.
It is the net figure which counts. Against the figure of out-flow we must set the counter-flow coming in, and the intake of foreigners. A lot of people think it odd that we should be taking foreigners into this country and sending British people out to the Commonwealth countries. But in fact it is a sensible policy. We can absorb a larger number of foreigners into a population of 50 million more easily and safely than can Commonwealth countries with smaller populations.
The right figure for a net out-flow, taking into account all the considerations possible, is the figure of about 100,000 or a little more, which is given in the report of the Royal Commission on Population. I do not know whether the Government would agree with that figure as a rough estimate. That would mean quite a considerable reduction of population


in this country. It does not sound an immense amount compared with the sort of figure which bodies of this sort talk about, but if we send 100,000 or so steadily out of this country it will mean, on the most reasonable assumption about the birth rate and so on, a population in 1973 of up to 7 per cent. less than today.

Mr. Follick: My right hon. Friend referred to a 7 per cent. reduction. What proportion of new births does that represent?

Mr. Gordon Walker: It depends entirely on the ages at which people go out. That is set out at considerable length in the Report of the Royal Commission. It would mean an increasingly large number of old people if the emigration were evenly distributed over the population.
We must face up to what this means. The Commonwealth countries I have mentioned need something like 230,000, which means that we could send about half of their needs. Therefore, immigration cannot be used to maintain the British balance in the Commonwealth unchanged as it is today. There is a slow change going on. The actual balance of population in the Commonwealth will get an increasing non-British element in it, and we must not, because it is quite impossible to keep it static, try to use migration as a way of maintaining the present balance of British people in the Commonwealth absolutely unchanged.
These arguments lead to the conclusion that we must have some idea of the total figure going, and also some idea of the direction in which we would like it to go. We need to concentrate more on the Commonwealth. There is quite a considerable migration to foreign countries. There was a sharp increase in 1951, and it is running now, or it was last year, at about 19,000. That is a considerable number of people, and many of them would be valuable in the Commonwealth. We should concentrate the available migration into Commonwealth channels and also consider, so far as possible, the best distribution of these people within the Commonwealth itself.
There are two examples which I wish to give, which are not often considered. Southern Rhodesia is a small country to which people from South Africa are

going at the rate of two-to-one compared with Britain. It is important that the British element should be kept up, as was stated in the Victoria Falls Communique. I am very glad that the Southern Rhodesian Government has a quota system and assisted passages.
Another point which is never mentioned at all is that of the British in India, Pakistan and Ceylon. This is not migration in the true sense of the term, because most of the British going there do not settle and bring up their families. But they do spend their working lives in those countries, and it is important that the number of British people doing so should be as high as possible. I believe that today there are more British people in India than before India received her independence. When I was in office I started a check of the figures of British in these three countries. I hope that the present Government is keeping that up, because these things cause a little trouble to officials and may sometimes tend to drop away.
If we have agreement on objectives the next question is how to attain them. We have very limited means, because we are discussing human beings and not cattle, and human beings can be very cussed people. Immigration and migration fluctuate enormously. From 1871 until 1931 there was a net outflow from this country, but in the decade, from 1931 to 1941, there was a net inflow into this country of over 650,000, largely from the Commonwealth. There are enormous fluctuations which are not within the control of Governments, because nobody wishes to impose compulsion one way or the other.
One way is by assisted passages, which is what the Bill deals with. I am not altogether enamoured of the idea of paying people to migrate. I think it is an outmoded and rather repugnant idea. From what he said about charity and so on, I gather that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch agreed with me. I do not think that the policy of assisted passages has been very successful. The figures given by the Under-Secretary show they have not been very successful, and I think it wrong and an old-fashioned idea.
The cost to us of migration from this country is getting greater every year. The cost of raising children to the age of 16 involves a bigger and bigger capital


investment. There is the cost of schooling, health and housing, and the receiving country reaps the entire benefit of that capital investment. We are entitled to maintain that migration to the Commonwealth is in itself imposing an increasing burden upon us.
We must watch the expenditure of our own country, because even a half million is not to be sneezed at. Our contribution to Australia, which incidentally is the only country with which we have an agreement under the Empire Settlement Act, is dropping. The agreement has to run for three years. There is not, and there should not be, any question of stopping this at once. There are a number of political considerations involved, but I think that when the three years comes to an end we may have to consider carefully whether this particular way is suitable and proper.
If it is necessary to have assisted passages in order to equalise different distances by sea and air, I feel it should be done by the receiving country—as is in fact done by Canada, New Zealand and Southern Rhodesia. There are much better ways of achieving these objectives, and we must achieve them in conjunction with the Commonwealth countries concerned. We must assert our right to share with them in discussing all sorts of problems which arise out of migration. That will not be a right which they will concede to us very willingly, but where they are taking our people we have a right—partly to watch the interests of those people and get effective statistics and so forth—to assert our right to discuss the matter with the Dominion countries concerned.
There are two things in particular which the United Kingdom can do. One is publicity. I bitterly regret the cuts which the Government have been making in information expenditure, and particularly in the C.O.I. lectures on the Commonwealth. That was one of the best ways of spreading knowledge and one of the most suitable ways of encouraging migration. For a Government to say it is in favour of migration and then for them to cut one of the main means at their disposal for helping migration is a great contradiction.
We can use direct publicity by the Government to create a spirit which will favour the optimum out-flow from this

country and give co-operation to Commonwealth Governments advertising themselves in this country. It is necessary to avoid competition. Various Commonwealth Governments compete one with another for the same sort of people, and they sometimes compete with our Government when we are trying to recruit scarce labour.
All these are things which must be sorted out in the common interest. We could give much help through the employment exchanges, and, indeed, we already do, but we could do a great deal more by proper advertising in the exchanges and in advice given to people who are seeking jobs. We can do more in conjunction with the Commonwealth Governments than we are doing now, and that sort of help would be very much more important than the relatively small sums that go towards assisted passages. However, we are prepared to support this Bill, which arises out of our own policy.
If I might summarise what I have been saying, I would say that we want optimum, and not maximum, migration; we want much better co-ordination in the Government machine and a much more realistic approach. Population is a rare and precious thing, which we must use with care and not under broad generalisations; and we must assert that this is a joint undertaking between ourselves and each of the Commonwealth Governments concerned. If we approach the problem in that spirit, we can all agree that migration is vitally important to the Commonwealth, but only if we tackle it in this realistic and proper spirit, and not regard it as a vague set of generalisations, as too often has been the case.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. E. Carson: We, who have put our names to the Amendment on the Order Paper, feel that this is a matter of extreme importance and we hope that the Government will feel the same way about it. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, made some of the right noises, but did not do it very convincingly. I am not sure that, in fact, he believes in increasing emigration.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) who has just sat down, was quite honest although, I think, rather muddled about


the whole thing. He seemed to arrive, with complacency, at the conclusion that the present population of this country was very satisfactory and about the right size, and, furthermore, that if we had not got an Empire we should need a far larger population than we have at the present time.
He might have said that if we had not got a Commonwealth, our standard of living, whatever our population, would be far lower than it is now. However, I think he does not believe that any substantial decrease in the population of this country is either possible or desirable. I do not agree with him.
My hon. Friends and myself who have put down the Amendment believe it is very important because, in fact, it contains a long-term policy. We are not Members of Parliament sent here to legislate only for the present, but we must look also to the future, and we believe that this proposal contains the long-term answer to many of the problems which we have to face as well as the answer to many of the problems facing the Dominions.
I do not want to do what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) said no one must do, destroy decades of work at the Colonial Office by trying to make out that we are only trying to do ourselves good, but, surely there is nothing wrong in a little mutual good doing between ourselves and the Empire. I disagree entirely with the right hon. Member for Smethwick, and I believe that it is impossible and will become increasingly impossible in the years to come to continue to have a population of the size that we now have in these islands, and to keep and increase our standard of living at the same time. I do not believe, either, that it is possible or right to leave the Dominions under-populated and under-developed, which would be the actual result, because, if we do not develop them—and the Government would do well to remember this—other people will do so, and we shall be left out in the cold.
We in the United Kingdom have always lived as an exporting nation, and we have lived because we have always been able to find world markets in which to sell what we produce. That must go on, because, from the nature of our geographical situation, we are bound to continue

to have to do it, but I do not believe that we shall be able to go on finding markets to sell the necessary amount of goods for our present population and, at the same time, keep our standard of living where it is. In this country, we are already experiencing the beginning of these difficulties.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke rather glibly about full employment—

Mr. Gordon Walker: I said that we should need all our hands.

Mr. Carson: Yes, of course, we should need all our hands, if there was full employment, but I do not believe that, with the population which we have now, we shall be able to maintain full employment without some form of redistribution of our population in the Dominions.
May I give two examples? Southern Rhodesia has found that it is good business to establish a cotton textile industry, and Australia is in the process of producing motor cars. I realise that the motor car industry in Australia is very small, and that Southern Rhodesia cannot even supply her own demand for cotton textiles, but we must look ahead. These industries will grow, whether we like it or not, and I believe that it is right and proper that people from this country should be in on this development from the beginning; otherwise, other people will take advantage of the opportunity, and perhaps American capital and also American people will take our places there. If that happens, where shall we be?
It has been quite rightly said that we cannot afford to have the cream skimmed from the population of this country, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he is in favour of family migration. Well, of course, we entirely agree, but it is planned migration that is necessary to produce that. If the Government are merely to allow the thing to drift on in the carefree way in which it is going at present, we shall not get the balance we want, and we will be left with all the older age groups and other unsuitable people. This is recognised to some extent by Australia, but not by all the Dominions. Australia is doing much to help family migration by means of subsidised passages.
Here, I must mention the distressing rumours which I have heard from Australia. I should like to know what is the actual position. If I followed the right hon. Gentleman opposite correctly when he talked about assisted passages, I understood him to say that there had been a reduction in what we were prepared to do, and that he expressed the hope that in the years to come it would not be necessary for us to give any financial aid because he did not think it was a good way of doing it. Here, again, this is simply a question of a disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and myself; we do not agree in principle and I know that the Australian Government do not agree at all.
I want to quote from the "Sydney Morning Herald" of 3rd April, 1952, on this subject. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the original agreement drawn up in 1946 was to the effect that the emigrant himself paid £10 for his passage, the Australian Government paid £37 10s., and the Government of the United Kingdom paid a like amount. Mr. Holt, the Minister for Immigration, said a short time ago, in Canberra, that the financing of the scheme was now being reviewed, and that latterly, because of the need for economy, the United Kingdom Government had reduced its contribution to £25. The point with which I am concerned is that I understand that the Government are considering whether to make any contribution at all, but in view of the success of the scheme I hope that the United Kingdom contribution will be maintained, especially as Mr. Holt went on to say that since the war Australia had received 294,900 British emigrants.
I want to ask the Minister whether there is any truth at all in this rumour. It is causing grave concern at Australia House, and in my view it would be a stupid action to take at the present time. Indeed, if I thought it was really going to be done, I would find myself quite unable to support this Bill as it stands. In my view it was a retrograde step to cut down the allowance to £25, but I think it is far more retrograde for the present Government to abolish it altogether.
We realise, of course, the immediate difficulties, but we are not doing a service either to this country or to the Commonwealth

by continually stressing those difficulties. We must consider them, of course, but, having stated them, let us leave it at that and see what we can do to produce a long-term plan. I would like to know what the Government are doing in that way.
I read a very good book on the subject of emigration in which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) wrote a foreword. He said:
I consider that the broad argument for redistribution of population is quite unanswerable.
He obviously does not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick—
On the other hand, the details need more study and discussion.
Are these details getting more study and is there being more discussion. If there has to be more discussion, what sort is wanted? When is discussion likely to finish and when is some concrete plan likely to be produced?
I do not accept the view that as a long-term policy a reduction of population in this country is either undesirable or impossible. All Governments are apt to pretend that things are impossible because it is generally easier to say so and it gives them an excuse for taking no action. I am quite certain that if it is agreed that it is vital and necessary both for this country and for the Commonwealth as a whole, then ways will be found round all the difficulties that exist. They will not, of course, be found at once, but they will be found in time.
We are told that one of the main difficulties is shipping. I see that so far as Australia is concerned there were 10 ships in 1949 with a total tonnage of 169,953 tons wholly devoted to the carriage of free and assisted passengers to Australia. No doubt many more ships will be needed, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Government should do all they could to help in this way. I quite agree.
I saw in my daily paper a few days ago that the "Empress of Australia," which has a gross tonnage of, I suppose, 23,000 tons, was sailing on her last voyage, at the end of which she was due to be scrapped. Is that the right thing to do at the present time? I think that the ship is being used by the Government


at the moment, and I suggest that they should step in and see what they can do in the matter. It is a fine ship. I have travelled in her on a journey to Canada. She may be old, but there are such things as refits.
Then, of course, there is another difficulty. A great many of the other countries in the Commonwealth are not so generous as Australia about taking family groups. Southern Rhodesia, for example, will not allow an aged relative or dependant—that means anybody of 65 years or over—to go with a family migrating to Rhodesia until the family have been established there for three years. This is an insuperable difficulty for some of the lower income groups who entirely look after and maintain their parents, and who must take them with them if they are to start life afresh in another country.
This is the sort of problem that should be taken up by Her Majesty's Government with the Dominions concerned. I do not think it matters whether we have a Commonwealth conference to discuss it or whether it is discussed bilaterally with one Dominion after another. The important thing is that it should be discussed, and Her Majesty's Government should get together with the Dominions.
Finally, I will return to my first point. The salient fact remains that migration to the Empire and the Dominions will go on whether this Government help or not or whether they try to prevent or assist it. But if they do not help, if they do not produce a concrete and coherent plan, then we shall find that we are losing our place in our own Commonwealth and that people in enormous numbers are coming in from elsewhere.
The figures for Southern Rhodesia are particularly disturbing. In 1950, for example, 4,481 persons emigrated there from the United Kingdom; 10,422 emigrated from South Africa, and 1,342 from elsewhere. That is a ratio of about one in four. In 1951 the position was better. There were 6,200 from the United Kingdom and 9,700 from the Union of South Africa. I find that situation extremely disturbing. Even the most recent Australian figures show that only 55 per cent. of the people going to Australia are of British extraction—in 1950 it was completely the other way round—105,000 non-British as compared with 68,000 British. This situation will not even be

maintained, I suggest at the 1951 level unless the British Government produce a coherent policy.
I suppose that this Bill is useful and unless, as I say, we are told that the Government are cutting down drastically on assisted passages to Australia, it must be supported. But it would be a good deal more useful if we spent a little more of the money we are allowed to spend under the Bill as it stands. I would remind the House that when it was first introduced in 1922 and when the £ was worth considerably more than it is today, the original figure was £3 million as compared with £1,500,000 now.
During the Second Reading debate of the first Empire Settlement Bill, Mr. L. S. Amery, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, said of that £3 million a year:
I believe that before very long we shall regard the amount now proposed as quite inadequate for so great and so remunerative a task."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1922; Vol. 153, c. 584.]
Not only has the amount then proposed been halved, but even that half is not really being used yearly by the Government.
We believe that a policy along the lines of the Amendment is the only policy that will make our survival possible. I do not believe that any party in the House has a complete answer to the difficulties—which I posed at the beginning of my speech—first, of finding world markets and second, of maintaining full employment. We believe that migration is the only possible answer and Her Majesty's Government will be doing a great disservice to the Empire and failing in their duty to their own people if they brush this opportunity aside and allow us to go on drifting.
I hope that they will give it urgent consideration, because upon it depends so much of the future of so many of our people. I sincerely hope that when the Minister of Labour comes to reply he will allay some of our fears and will let us see that the Government will really take a lead in this matter.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) because like him I treat this subject of migration


within the Commonwealth as a problem of the development of the economic system of the Commonwealth as a whole. That is the framework within which it must be discussed.
One of the key factors we are facing today is that power depends upon access to raw materials and food. Any major industrial country can set up a factory system these days but unless those factories have raw materials to fabricate they are completely useless.
Every speaker in this debate has touched upon the fascination of this subject of the migration of human beings to new countries. Few of us can study the history of some of the earliest migrants, the Pilgrim Fathers, without being moved by their struggle and final success, which has resulted in English being the language of North America. But this enthusiasm has the unfortunate result of tending to cause us to think somewhat imprecisely on the subject of migration.
There are very difficult and complex subjects which must be considered and no final agreement has been reached on them. However, in spite of the fact that we do not know quite how much migration we should have and where it should go no one will deny that the result of the migration of British people during the last two or three centuries has been important; and future migrations will have important results provided that their direction or flow is wisely guided.
History shows that up to now the most successful method of migration has been by the initiative of the individual. Attempts have been made in the past to plan migration but they have not been particularly or markedly successful. Nevertheless, I feel that at the moment we should not discard the idea of directed migration for that reason. None of us, of course, wants compulsion. Since our resources of manpower and capital are extremely limited, however, since the demands upon our resources are very great, we must consider whether or not we should attempt to direct the flow of men and capital from this country in the interest of the Commonwealth as a whole.
There is no doubt—and I think the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will probably agree

with me—that the present Bill is extremely limited. The Empire Settlement Act has worked out in practice to be a kind of Australia Settlement Act and not very much more.
We should discuss whether or not we want something more. I argue that we do because the world today is not the world that existed in 1922. The difference, of course, is that whereas our problems and responsibilities today are as great if not greater than they were then our resources are more limited, and for that reason we must husband them.
There are many other factors as well. Free movement within the Commonwealth is virtually impossible for exchange and other reasons. There are many limiting factors that did not exist in 1922. We are experiencing a chronic lack of balance between the trade of the old and the new worlds, and the demands on our heavy industries today are very great indeed, not only because of the re-armament programme but because of the ambitions and the hopes of new Commonwealth members who look to us to supply their economic needs.
We have accepted under the Colombo Plan very great responsibilities. Those responsibilities must be considered within the framework of our policy on the economic development of the Commonwealth as a whole; and we must not forget the political implications of population pressures in Asia and Europe.
We are facing problems of our own economic survival and the problems of Asia's economic development, which we must accept if Asian peoples are to march with us of the West. There is the problem created by the need to out-produce Russia and thus enable us to keep her in check and to help those people whose discontent might be utilised by her.
Our problems might seem daunting but we must face them and succeed in solving them. We are not alone. We must not forget that we have good and strong friends within the Commonwealth and outside and that they and we have resources which are the envy of the world. In fact the envy of the world of the resources which lie within the control of our economic system is so great that it could be dangerous to us.
If we are to succeed in our concept of the Colombo plan we must use to the


full the resources of the West. And the counter-part of the Colombo Plan is a Commonwealth development plan for the Commonwealth as a whole. In all this I feel that directed or guided migration has an important part to play. We have limited resources and therefore we must have priorities.
The old system of assisted passages and infiltration upon arrival is not sufficient. What we are succeeding in doing in Australia is to increase the urban population in that country and that urban population is now eating a proportion of the food that used to come here. We should attempt to concentrate our resources, shooting with a rifle, as it were, rather than with a sten gun.
We should think not in terms of pure economics but in terms of security economics. The weakness of this Bill is that it is a stop-gap. It will tide us over the next five years but it should be followed by a Commonwealth Development Bill in which migration is treated as one of the essential elements of Commonwealth development.
I agree that the subject of how much migration we can afford is extremely complex and difficult but that does not mean it is unimportant. I urge the Government to undertake a study of the implications of migration from this country to the Commonwealth as a whole. I hope that when the Government spokesman replies to the debate he will indicate to what extent this possibility of directed migration is being considered by the two committees the appointment of which was forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on the financial economic situation on 24th January.
The one committee, under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, is studying Commonwealth development. The other, under the chairmanship of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, is studying problems surrounding sterling convertibility. I should very much appreciate it if the Government spokesman would indicate whether migration is one of the factors which is receiving consideration by those two committees.
On the question of sterling convertibility, I shall be grateful if I may be allowed to make a small digression and mention a subject which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member

for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). One of the least satisfactory facts in our relations with the rest of the Commonwealth is the fact that we are steadily being cut off from the development of Canada.
I have just seen a quotation from a Canadian newspaper, the "Toronto Globe and Mail," which points out that last year out of 194,000 immigrants to Canada only 32,000 came from the United Kingdom. I think that figure is worse than any which has been quoted so far.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: It is 17 per cent.

Mr. Winterbottom: Yes, 17 per cent. This must be compared with 1914, when over 50 per cent. of the immigrants came from this country. The "Toronto Globe and Mail" is extremely concerned at this fact, and states:
Many will ask whether this is the consequence of any particular plan or policy. If it is the policy of Ottawa to build up the country on the 'melting pot' system the people of Canada should know about it. If, on the other hand, the policy is to preserve the essential character of the Canadian people, then … the Minister of Immigration is clearly failing to carry it out.
That is an important newspaper expressing that the British contribution to Canada's population is failing, and I urge upon the Government to take action to assist the Minister of Immigration in Canada to maintain the British element in Canada's population.
There is another point which we should not forget. The development of Canada's economic system is, from the Canadian point of view, inherently unhealthy. At the moment the development of Canada's vast natural resources is being undertaken by United States industry for its own purposes. The great American firms—steel, oil and so on—faced with the possibility of using up all their own natural resources, are turning to Canada to supply the raw materials that they require. Canada is simply becoming, for this reason, a sort of economic colony of America.
That is something which many Canadians do not like. They want a balanced industry of their own, and the only country to which they can turn to provide the flow of capital, men and techniques which will give her that balanced industry is this country. There is, I believe, in Saskatchewan a very considerable battle by the local Government to ensure that the natural gas of that


State should be developed by a British undertaking and not by and American one.
I think hon. Members will agree that it is most desirable that the vast untapped as those of the United States, should be developed in conjunction with this country. I hope that the Government spokesman will consider that.
I want to make a second point which has been touched on earlier by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. If Her Majesty's Government are proposing to have a more positive policy on the subject of migration, as I hope they are, we must have one Minister responsible for migration as a whole.
There is a migration officer at the Commonwealth Relations Office. We want more than an officer; we want a department. We had one at the old Colonial Office—the Overseas Settlement Department of the Colonial Office—but that has died a natural death, and one officer has replaced it. We want a Minister who can co-ordinate the activities of other Departments, which must be concerned but which must not have anything to say in the making or control of policy.
In addition, I feel that the old Overseas Settlement Board should be reconstituted in some form or another. It died at the outbreak of war, or rather, it slept and it has never awakened again. I feel that some independent body watching development throughout the Commonwealth would produce valuable information for our use.
Further, many speakers have stressed the need for study and research into the exact limits of migration, and into what is really an optimum migration policy. The economics of migration are extremely complex, as anyone who has read the books on the subject will probably know. But I think a general answer could be reached fairly rapidly if careful study was given to the various factors concerned.
All of us agree that the receiving countries are grossly under-populated, but there is considerable divergence at home on the subject of what is actually an optimum population for this country. I hold the view that we are probably

over-populated, but there are various points of view on that subject. There is no doubt that study is necessary, and in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln and I propose to move and Amendment enabling the Government to spend some of the money voted under the Empire Settlement Bill for the purposes of research. I think research is necessary, and a comparatively small sum should be available for it.
I have been concerned in some negotiations with the Nuffield Foundation for the purpose of obtaining money for research of this type, and indeed the Nuffield Foundation did agree in principle to a pilot study being carried out in an area of Australia, subject to the agreement of the Australian counterpart body. Unfortunately Australia's counterpart of the Nuffield Foundation did not agree to research taking place. I am certain if a certain amount money had been available from Government sources in this country to be added to the money put forward by the Nuffield Foundation, the scheme would have found favour and would have produced a very valuable piece of independent research into the possibilities of opening up an area of Australia.
There has also been considerable discussion on the possibilities of some sort of Commonwealth study of migration within the Commonwealth. I think the case against a Commonwealth conference on migration has been pretty strongly stated, but the Royal Commission on Population, whose Report has also been quoted, does come out in favour of a technical study of the optimum rate of migration.
Paragraph 343 of that Commission's Report says:
It seems to us necessary to accept the fact that, assuming Great Britain's economic position does not deteriorate, the flow of emigrants from Great Britain, even if fertility in Great Britain were maintained at replacement level or a little over, is unlikely to be more than about a third of the number of immigrants which the other Commonwealth countries would need if they wanted to maintain even an annual rate of growth of 2 per cent.
We could only provide a third of their needs. The Royal Commission urges that the problem presented should be studied jointly by the Government of Great Britain and other countries. I


think a study should take place, in spite of views expressed to the contrary, within the framework laid down by the Royal Commission on Population.
One further point arises. The Royal Commission points out that this country can provide only one-third of the migrants required by various members of the Commonwealth to develop their own resources to the full. For this reason I feel that we should turn to the surplus populations which exist in Western Europe to help us out of this dilemma. America grew and developed because she took in millions of people from Western Europe who were under-privileged and who wanted a wider life. Such people exist in Western Europe today and in the present situation they are a political liability, because discontented people are a breeding ground for Communism.
There are 8 million refugees in Western Germany who could very easily turn to some sort of national fuehrer. There are the excess population of Italy and Holland. There are many thousands of Czech refugees in Western Germany. Above all, there are the Maltese, who are our responsibility, and who are suffering very considerably from population pressure.
All these men are potentially useful citizens, and I feel that when the Government consider migration policy as a whole they should weigh up that proportion of these people we should bring into this country and into the Commonwealth as a whole, using them as an asset and causing them to cause being a liability. The machinery for helping them does exist, at the moment, in an extraordinary body known as the Provisional Inter-Governmental Committee for Migration, which is a sickly child of the old International Refugee Organisation. That is keeping alive the movement organisation and fleet of the I.R.O. but it is only a provisional organisation.
This year its budget is £10 million, of which America is paying £5 million. I urge Her Majesty's Government to make a substantial contribution to that body and try to create a permanent organisation in place of the existing provisional one. Our problem is that we have great responsibilities without the economic power we require to discharge them, and we must create that economic power by

developing the Commonwealth's resources as a whole.
We must put an end to the situation in which Canada's resources are being developed for the benefit of the United States, or such cases as that of the Blair Atholl coalfield, where the situation might arise that Australian coal is developed by the United States for the benefit of the Japanese. This situation can be altered only by the movement of machines, men and capital from this country. We have limited resources and for that reason I argue that we must concentrate those resources, and that directed migration must be the machinery by which we guide those resources to the end which will bring the greatest return.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Winter-bottom), because I should like to develop a little more what he said about settlement in Canada. I happen to know something of the great undeveloped resources of that country. Indeed, I should go so far as to say that British Columbia, in particular, in potentially one of the richest regions in the world and, what I think is so important to this debate, is one well suited for settlement by people of our own race.
The attitude of Canada towards immigration from this country is much more favourable today than it has sometimes been in the past; but Canada lacks capital as well as people, and the king of immigrants she wants are not only those who seek skilled or unskilled work for wages but people who will bring their money as well as their energy and use both for the development of the country. Many Canadians think that the most useful contribution the Treasury can make to Empire settlement is not so much by assisted passages as by allowing people to take more of their own money out of this country when they go to Canada to settle.
We all know that the present allowance is totally inadequate for anyone who wants to set up a business of his own, on however small a scale. My hon. And learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has told us this afternoon that it is quite out of the question to increase this allowance;


we have not got enough dollars. But I am wondering whether we are spending our scarce dollars to the best advantage at the moment, and whether we are making enough effort to earn more dollars by increasing our trade with Canada.
As to the former point, it is a fact that between 1946 and 1951 emigrants to Canada took with them remittances to the extent of £27,300,000; but during that same period we spent £61,900,000 on American films, and I question the wisdom of that form of expenditure. If we take the question of sales to Canada, between 1947 and 1951 we sold machinery to Canada worth £36 million; but during that same period we sold to the Soviet Union, to Poland and Czechoslovakia, machinery worth £51 million. I wonder if that was a wise thing to do. I do not believe it was because we could not have got orders. I am very glad to say that in the last year—1951—the position has changed considerably. We have sold more machinery to Canada than at any other time and, at £13 million, our sales are double those to the other countries I mentioned. But could we not have done something about getting those orders earlier? I believe we could.
I suppose that the majority of people who want to settle in Canada are those with little or no capital of their own. What they are wondering is what are the chances of a job and a house when they get there. That the chances of a job are good is, I think, shown by a speech made last month by Mr. Winters, the Minister of Resources and Development in Canada. If I may quote two short sentences, he said:
Records of production that have been achieved by the present programme of development of our national resources are merely a step along the way to realising our vast potential. Some of the most spectacular projects are still in what might be described as the tooling up stage as we lay solid foundations for the future.
In British Columbia there is a colossal amount of development going on, some of it, I am very glad to say, by Canadian companies, although there is a good deal of American capital. If I may give one very striking example, there is the 500 million dollar Kittimat project of the Aluminium Company of Canada. Its purpose is to dam a very sizeable river,

reverse its course and send it through a 10 mile tunnel through a mountain, giving it a fall of 2,000 feet and so developing hydro-electric power which will operate what may well turn out to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, aluminium plants in the world.
I mention that because although there are only some 3,200 people working on the project in the tooling up stage, this little village of Kittimat—a little Indian village which no one had heard of two years ago—will be a town with some 50,000 inhabitants in a very short time. That is not in the least surprising when we reflect that hydro-electric power brought growth and development to the Pacific North-West of the United States which has enabled that region, a far smaller region than British Columbia, to absorb quite easily a million new inhabitants since 1940. I do not think there is any fear of a shortage of jobs. As for houses, although the position is undoubtedly difficult around the cities, that does not apply to anything like the same extent in the interior, where much the best opportunities exist for new and energetic settlers.
I recently conducted some correspondence with a Member of Parliament for the part of Canada in which I used to live, and perhaps I may quote a rather interesting sentence from a letter which he wrote to me. He said:
It is plain to me that we could place white populations in the North-West regions of the Continent where there are the natural resources to support them. Obviously we should endeavour to bring in at least a majority from the British Isles.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central, so rightly pointed out, when be quoted from the "Toronto Globe and Star," this is not happening at the moment. Perhaps I may enlarge on his figures. During the four years between 1948 and 1951, in round figures, 110,000 emigrants went to Canada from the United Kingdom, 30,000 from the United States and 316,000 from other countries. I say nothing against people who go from Southern and Central and Northern Europe. They make very good settlers and they are very hard working people. I know many of them very well. But I wonder, and many Canadians wonder, whether they are so reliable at a time of crisis as people who come from British stock. Have they the same interest in


the difficulties and the dangers which beset the old country?
Turning to what we could do to help migration, I am inclined to agree with those who think that bilateral discussion is the better policy. We might see what each Dominion wants, what sort of people it wants, what sort of opportunities it would offer them, where it would put them; and we must insist on the Dominions taking family groups—people of all ages. I believe they are now thinking much more favourably along those lines in Canada.
The migration might fall under two headings. The first is settlement by the family, and here I repeat that they must be allowed to take more of their own money with them. Second, in connection with this, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, we must give a great deal more publicity to the scheme. People do not know anything like enough about what is offered, what are the opportunities, how they will go out there, and so on.
It is up to Her Majesty's Government to help them to get where they are needed, and it is very much up to the country or the province of their choice, to which they are going, to receive them and to see that they are given a full chance to make use of those opportunities which induced them to emigrate. We do not want people to come back here disgruntled and disappointed.
In the second category I would put the movement of factories or the starting of new factories by British firms. Here, I suggest, the first step would be to allow business men to go over to the Commonwealth country they choose, to allow them to examine the prospects on the spot, to choose a site for their factory, to make up their minds how much they want to invest and then to return and to put a proposition to the Governments concerned so that financial arrangements can be made. We might send out an advance party, as it were, to erect the factory, instal the machinery and perhaps start building the houses. They could be followed as soon as possible by those who were going to work there, and their families.
These schemes will all cost a great deal of money, but I believe that they will also be the means of our earning

a great deal more through increased exports, because I think those people who go from this country to their new country will want to use some of those goods to which they have been accustomed at home. They will create, in fact, a considerable demand for our goods and thereby greatly enlarge our export market.
For my part, I cannot understand why successive Governments have made such little use of the last two Acts. I believe it to be a fact that up to 1936 we spent only £6 million out of the £43½ million which had been authorised. I realise that in the inter-war years the Dominions had their difficulties. They had their unemployment. But that situation certainly does not exist today, and I believe that what may have been good enough in 1937 is nothing like good enough in 1952.
With all respect, and although I shall, naturally, support the Bill, this is really a miserable little Bill. It may be suggested that it is better than nothing, but I am not altogether sure that I agree. If we do not believe in Empire settlement, why authorise the Government to spend even £1½ million for the purpose? If we do believe in it, then let us stop playing about with the idea and get down to doing the job properly. I am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend realises full well the immense importance of developing the resources of the Empire. He knows, as we all know, that the best way of doing it is with our own people and our own money.
I am sure he will not insist that this Bill is the best we can do, nor will he tell us that to a Government—any Government—which spends money, sometimes with a lavish hand, on prospects or for purposes of very doubtful value at home, £1½ million is all they can afford to settle the Empire. I appeal to him to see whether he can do better and to produce a bold and imaginative policy which is worthy of the great cause we seek to promote.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. M. Follick: I am very glad to have this opportunity of intervening in the debate because I have long taken an interest in this question of Imperial integration. I dislike terms like "Empire settlement plan," or "Empire migration," and for that reason I have coined the phrase "Imperial integration."


What we have to do is to integrate the Empire, to make the Empire a concern which interests all the nations, all the States, within it, equally.
I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson), and I entirely disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), because there is quite plainly an important strategic question involved in Imperial integration. In addition, and in spite of what has been said, I believe our Islands are overcrowded.
I have made several speeches on this question in the House. Indeed, I made two in 1947, and I then came to the conclusion which others have reached now—that if we were to reduce the population of these Islands to about 35 million by Imperial integration, we could feed that number of people from our own produce.
Equally, by encouraging people to integrate the Empire overseas, by sending our own stock overseas, we should be building up markets in those countries—reliable markets—for our industries. It is complementary because, after all is said and done, the Commonwealth nations are our only reliable markets overseas. There are other markets, such as the United States, which take our goods in a time of emergency, but when they find they can manufacture the goods themselves, then they put up tariffs to keep British goods out. We are having that trouble even now. With the Commonwealth we have a natural bond of relationship. That bond we have to develop. We have to make the Empire not a dependency of the United Kingdom but an integrated whole which includes the United Kingdom as well.
We have now approaching a population of 51 million in these islands, and our population is increasing at the rate of 250,000 a year, so that every four years our population goes up by a million.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is that correct? Today it is increasing by 250,000 every year, but that is a falling figure, and at the end of four years that increase will be very much less.

Mr. Follick: My hon. and learned Friend may know a lot about the law,

but does not appear to know much about arithmetic. If the population increases by 250,000 a year that increase is breeding as well, so the population goes on increasing; so at the end of four years the population is increased by a million and by the end of 10 years it is increased by 2,500,000. There will come a time when we cannot house or feed these people.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Surely my hon. Friend agrees with the Royal Commission on Population that the increase is not going to go on, and that the population will in fact have fallen after about 1965 or 1970?

Mr. Follick: I have never heard of an increasing population falling.
Before the First World War I had an opportunity of studying the question of immigration in Australia. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said here today, we have to publicise this question of migration much more than we do. Before the First World War the shipping companies advertised and publicised emigration to the different parts of the Empire, and they produced all sorts of beautiful pictures and attracted people to go out there.
In Australia, as the immigrants arrived, they were taken care of. There were no restrictions on Europeans except for health. Once one passed the health test one was accepted if one was a European. If one had not a job to go to, the Government of Australia, before the First World War, found a job at a minimum wage, so that one was taken care of from the very moment one landed.
That is not the case in Canada today. A family from Loughborough went to Canada on the Ontario Plan, and when they got there they were left to fend for themselves. That sort of thing will have to be altered. As people go in there will have to be committees to look after them, and to direct them not only to the places where they may be wanted but to the sorts of jobs they are capable of doing, and to take care of them. The head of this family from Loughborough was an engineer. He had been an engineer at the Brush works. He had passed his examinations at Loughborough college. The best job he could


get on landing, however, was as a piano-tuner. [Laughter.] There is no joke about this.

Mr. Baxter: I was in the piano business. Does the hon. Gentleman infer that an engineer can leave his bench and tune a piano?

Mr. Follick: The hon. Gentleman says he was in the piano business. He ought to know if he was in the piano business.
At the present moment, while we have this tremendous population in this country of over 50 million—approaching 51 million—we are exporting the things that we really need ourselves, in this country, in order to import the food and the raw products that we require. So the very things we need, we have to export to bring in our food.
By the policy of Imperial integration the population would be on a level which we could feed ourselves, and we should export our industrial products only after serving our own needs, because we should not have to bring and pay for such large quantities of food as we have to bring in, and pay for, at the present, and we should have markets for the industrial products within Imperial integration. Thus we should be raising the standard of living in those other countries and raising the standard of living in this country as well.
There has been the suggestion about taking populations in sections. I do not know that that is a very important question, because I have seen in the different parts of the world where I have been—and I know a good many parts of the Empire—the younger people, after they have arrived in their new country, bring in their sweethearts, get married, rear families, and then bring over their parents or their aunts and uncles, because the older people have a use in these new countries as well, for they look after the house, they look after the children, and they do the other jobs that the younger people do not want to do.
It is the natural thing for the younger people to bring out their relatives and their friends afterwards, to make their homes out there for good. If they do not do so, then, generally speaking, they are the ones who become disgruntled and return to this country, where they find the surroundings more congenial to them.
Another question was that of the selection of the kind of migrants wanted. Well, it does not make a lot of difference. I have noticed, especially in Sydney, that about 90 per cent. of the migrants remain in the large cities, and not a sufficient number go out on to the land. The peculiar thing is that it is the second generation—the generation which is born in Australia—that goes out on to the land.
If the migrants go to live in Australia, and population is thus got into the country, then their children and their grandchildren make the farmers and the woodsmen who are required.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Does that apply to Canada and New Zealand as well?

Mr. Follick: It does apply to New Zealand. I cannot say to what extent it applies to Canada. One of my hon. Friends was wondering what was the proportion of land in Australia suitable for settlement. Well, Queensland alone could take 20 million inhabitants. Western Australia has a million square miles of territory—[An HON. MEMBER: "Desert."]—not desert. Western Australia has plenty of fertile land.
We are talking now only of a small proportion of people going from one part of the Empire to another, and they are not all going to Australia.

Mr. J. Johnson: If my hon. Friend will not accept my testimony, will he listen to a gentleman called Griffith Taylor, perhaps the finest geographer Australia has produced. We have just heard that Queensland alone, 80 per cent. of it north of the Tropic of Capricorn, could support some 20 million people. Griffith Taylor, as an Australian, sets the ultimate population for the whole of Australia, all its 3 million square miles, at not more than 22 to 25 million. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Follick: I have given my comment. I know Australia. I have written books on Australia which sell well in Australia.

Mr. J. Johnson: It was Griffith Taylor's view, not mine.

Mr. Follick: When all these things are put together we see that there can be a valuable Imperial integration, which will be substantial in its results not only for this country but also for the whole world,


because we shall be an intermediate Power in the world, something between the United States and Russia, which is important. We shall be a balancing Power.
In order to get that we have to watch Australia with the greatest care. This is the reason why I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). It is of the greatest strategic importance that the population of Australia should increase rapidly. When I was first in Australia before the First World War there was great apprehension as a result of the war between Russia and Japan and the following Anglo-Japanese alliance. The Australians were afraid of what would happen to their country.
After that we had the increasing menace of Japan to Australia. In the last few months Mr. Casey has said that the ultimate destiny of Japan will be on the Asiatic mainland. But we shall then have not the menace of 60 million Japanese to Australia but the menace of 500 million Orientals looking at an empty Continent from their own overcrowded territory.
I believe that in the last war a Japanese submarine actually penetrated Sydney Harbour. We can guess what will happen unless something can be done to strengthen the population of Australia, and if we do not do that, Australia will have to turn to the United States for the protection which her own population cannot give her.
I disagree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) about not taking South Africa into consideration. Unless there is a fair amount of immigration into South Africa from this country there will be an overwhelming predominance of Boer influence there which will totally wipe out the whole of the British influence in South Africa and break one of the most important connecting links in Imperial integration. In influx into Rhodesia the Boers are two to one. There are whole villages in the southern part of Southern Rhodesia where not a word of English is spoken and only Afrikaans is heard. We must help to move populations for the sake of maintaining these countries as an integrated part of our own Imperial integration.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Am I right in thinking that what my hon. Friend has just said does not apply in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Follick: That is true. Northern Rhodesia is a little further away from South Africa and the Boer influence.

Mr. Gordon Walker: There is very considerable immigration into Northern Rhodesia, far more than into Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Follick: I am merely stating that there are whole villages in Southern Rhodesia where one hears Afrikaans all the time and not a word of English. The language in the churches and the schools is Afrikaans.
When I first went out to Cape Town before the first World War not a word of Afrikaans was heard there, but today most people in Cape Town speak Afrikaans, and that is evidence of the spread of Boer influence. Our only way of counteracting that influence is by ensuring that the influx of people from this country becomes larger than it is at present.
These are the few matters that I wish to bring before the House today. We can maintain ourselves only by maintaining the Commonwealth and being a part of the whole. We must belong to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth must belong to all of us. A permanent council—not a department or a Ministry, but a permanent council—ought to be set up to be continually in session studying the needs of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and distributing the population according to the offers and the needs.
It could have a session in this country and then move for another year to Toronto, another year to Sydney, another year to Dunedin or some other town in New Zealand and then another year to South Africa. Distances are not what they were before the first World War. In those days Sacramento, in California, was further from New York, in time, than Sydney is from London today.
Time has shortened distances and there is now nothing to prevent a permanent council being located year after year in different parts of the Empire. That would promote ideas and produce the necessary research, and it would also


make the interchange of population from one part of the Commonwealth to another much simpler to carry out.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: I feel a good deal more reassured at this stage of the debate than I did at the beginning. It is quite clear there has not been anything like the hysterical over-simplification of this very complex problem which one might have expected. I also take some comfort from the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations seems to see no insuperable objections to the swelling numbers of Canadian immigrants into this House. I do not think that we can discuss this subject without referring to Canada.
I do not know, and I do not think that the wisest and best informed among us can really say for certain, how many people ought to leave this country or how many foreigners ought to come into it. All I know is that this country would be in a rather desperate position if the Commonwealth and the Empire did not exist. If we can do anything to increase the unity and economic strength of the Commonwealth we would benefit enormously. So the thing for which the Government can have no excuse whatever is inaction. When I read the Bill I felt it was as masterly a piece of inactivity as I have seen in that form, but I am a little more assured now.
I want to make one or two particular points about Canada. One hon. Member pointed out that about 17 per cent. of the 194,000 people who went into Canada last year were British. I think it is a great pity that, whatever limitation there may be on the numbers of people who are able to leave this country to go to the Dominions, one Dominion that does not really need such a large proportion of British immigrants should get much the largest proportion. Canada is vital to this country, because there we find a unique position. It is only an overnight journey from here and there are 3½ million square miles of it; and it is the largest in area of the Dominions with the highest standard of life of any country in the world, with the possible exception of the United States. But Canada is a country which offers more opportunities to Great Britain than any other of our

Dominions, particularly at the present time, because there we find an almost unlimited—unlimited within the terms we have been discussing this afternoon—capacity to absorb large numbers of British people. The dollar shortage is one of the principal obstacles to the immigration into Canada of people and industries.
I should like to speak for a moment of the most valuable kind of emigration that we can get today, and that is the migration of business and industry to Canada. The businessman who sets up in Canada earns dollars. He usually takes a proportion of his equipment from this country and when he sets up a selling organisation it often happens that he will not only sell his own line of goods but also several lines of goods from this country. His employees will often bring with them their wives and children, and sometimes the old folk as well. That is very good for Canada and very good for Great Britain.
The Treasury, I know, are co-operative and fully aware of the value of this kind of migration. It is the Board of Trade that is the biggest hazard, particularly for the small businessman who wants to set up in Canada. Some of these smaller businesses manage to find a good proportion of the finance that they need in Canada, and then they must come here to seek the approval of the Treasury and the Board of Trade to get the dollars, often a very small amount, that they need for equity in the enterprise which they are starting up.
I have been to Canada many times in the course of the last few years and one thing I am quite certain of is that there is a great opportunity for us to explore much more thoroughly than appears to have been done ways and means of getting more Canadian finances for industry that want to start up there. I have had some practical experience of how this can be done, and I believe that we might well find a very favourable reaction from certain lending institutions in Canada if they are approached in the right way.
Within the next decade ships from this country will be able to sail right into the heart of Canada. Every single mile of the long St. Lawrence waterway will benefit by this development. Most of the route passes through the richest, most thickly populated parts of Canada and


the United States. The proximity not only to markets but to a great variety of natural resources and the hydro-electric development which must go with it will make this whole area an industrialist's paradise. The Quebec and Labrador iron-ore project will result very soon in the United States having to buy most of the iron-ore supplies from those regions instead of in Minnesota, which, in the next 10 years, will be out of the more profitable runs of iron ore.
The oil pipeline has already been mentioned, but it should be noted that last year Canada was the biggest producer of oil in the Commonwealth, the second biggest producer of gold and will soon be the biggest producer of uranium. All these things will combine to strengthen the Canadian dollar and maintain it as one of the strongest currencies in the world. These are important things for us to consider, because the more we can investigate and attack the fundamental problem of how to get to know that country and assist in this unbelievable development the better it will be. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world.

Mr. J. Johnson: We have heard some nonsense talked on this side of the House about the future development and population of Australia. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what, in his view, the optimum population of Canada will be in the next two or three decades?

Mr. Aitken: There are all sorts of speculations of anything between 50 million and 100 million. I do not know which is right and I do not know whether 10 million or 20 million people in Australia is right. All I know is that we ought to do something about it.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman help us on this point? I do not know the Canadian situation, but have the Canadian Government given any indication of the sort of numbers they can receive?

Mr. Aitken: At the moment they are well able to receive at least 200,000 a year; but I am not sure of the demographic position. That is clear from the figure of 194,000 for last year of new emigrants going into Canada. Constant study is going on. In Canada they

appear to be more interested in demographic problems than we in this country, and more serious research and investigation is going on there than anywhere else in the world. In the last few years I had an opportunity of visiting Australia, New Zealand, most of our Asiatic Colonies, India, Pakistan, South Africa and the Rhodesias and it seems to me that whatever we do or say about emigration we have to consider that from our point of view emigration from this country should be rather more selective a process than perhaps has been mentioned here today.
We ought to encourage as many people as we can to go to Canada for economic reasons and to Southern Rhodesia for political reasons, and perhaps not quite so many to Australia which can assimilate a larger number of foreigners. If we take this line the numbers that go become less important than where they go. It is much more important for them to go to a place which can benefit this country most and they will benefit themselves, too.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Population has been mentioned several times, and it is but right that it should be mentioned. Many of the problems with which we are concerned are set out there with great clarity. This Report indicates that if we could be certain that our export programme is not enough to produce the materials we need, then the question of the reduction of the population in this country becomes one of supreme relevance and the necessity will arise for planned emigration to the Dominions. The whole point is that we must plan and make our arrangements now.
I was glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary's statement about the Government's intention about encouraging emigration, and there are two points I should like to make. I shall be able to contain astonishment if the Government do not accept them right away. The first point I make is that we might well follow the wise example of Canada and Australia and appoint a Minister for Commonwealth Settlement and Development to work under the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I say this for one particular reason, that if one Minister were responsible for the planning and controlling of


migration, both of industry and of people such a step would not only be warmly welcomed as an earnest of the Government's intentions but I think the Government themselves might be surprised to see how much importance would be attached to this Bill and how well it would be received in Canada and Australia. If we are to visualise the organisation of emigration on realistic lines it is not necessary to think of this in terms of getting up to 750,000 people out of this country a year, as has been mentioned. What matters is how we do it and where they go. Properly carried out, even 100,000 a year would produce desirable results.
I do not think that £1½ million is nearly enough. If we are to do this job as it should be done, we ought to talk in terms of £5 million. That is not an excessive figure in view of the importance of this kind of emigration to us all. Too often we think of migration in terms of assisted passages, but there is much more to it than that. It would not matter very much if such a sum were fully expended in one year or not, but its allocation, plus the appointment of a Minister, would be the clearest indication we could give to the Commonwealth that we really mean business.
Besides assisted migration there is the question of financial help to industry. All kinds of things can be done to help the small businessman who wants to set up in the Dominions, particularly in Canada. There is great scope for careful investigation by the Government into the possibilities of financing and starting businesses in Canada, perhaps with Canadian help.
The key to successful migration everywhere in the world is the provision of communications—I will refrain from using the controversial word "transport." The moment the railroad appears, the moment the roads are built, things start to happen—

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Patronage Secretary to be running round the House trying to persuade hon. Members not to speak upon this important Measure for the benefit of the Empire? The procedure is a little too obvious.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order. I do not know what the Patronage Secretary is doing.

Mr. Aitken: Reference has been made many times this afternoon to the question of cross-sections of the community in any migration scheme. We all agree upon that, but we must realise that cheap passages outward are not the only thing. I am certain that there would be a good psychological effect upon people who might be reluctant to leave this country if they knew that they could get a passage back at the same rate as the outward one. The knowledge that they could come back when they liked, would appeal to elderly people and might result in the settlement of a lot of non-productive people in some of the pleasant places of the Commonwealth as well as the Dominions. That is perhaps worth investigating when one remembers the enormous improvement in living and medical conditions in some of the more delightful places in the Empire.
I am only too conscious of the small amount of time we have been given this afternoon for this debate. I wish we had much more. I came along prepared to hold forth at some length on these matters, but I have thrown away about half of my speech. There are many things I should like to deal with but I will only say this: it is high time that the people in this House and outside stopped thinking of Great Britain as an island unto itself. We are the centre of a Commonwealth with the sea and the air as a highway to our own lands. Communications are so swift, far-reaching, universal and intimate that a community of destiny is inexorably forced on British people all over the world. Let us boldly choose our destiny while we still can, and let us see that there is a great going and coming and mixing up together to the lasting advantage of us all.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: This is a subject which attracts a great deal of woolly thinking, woolly writing and woolly talking. I shall be bold enough to stir up controversy by saying that I have heard a lot of woolly talking in the Chamber on this subject this afternoon.
Apart from the question of the strategic dispersal of the Commonwealth, the problem involved in the Bill and in the Amendment is an economic one. At every turn this afternoon speakers ran up to the economic problem and then ran


right away from it. It happened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), and it happened even more in the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson). The economic problem is fundamental to the entire discussion; and it is the question of the economic future of the sterling area of which the Commonwealth is the greater part. So it is ridiculous to be talking all the sentiment we have had this afternoon without looking at the economic problem which is more basic.
Let me give two examples of things we have heard said in the House today. I am sorry the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet is not here now. He said that if we did not get on with the development of the Commonwealth, we should find American capital going in there. He spoke of that with horror. Yet one of the problems facing the Commonwealth today is that of attracting American capital, not freezing it out. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln read, with obvious approval, a telegram suggesting that our textile industries should be taken out to Australia. Whatever good would that do? It would mean dislocation, the impossibility of housing them when they got there, and having to wait five years before seeing any results. Even then, what good would it do?
Let us look at the Australian position at the moment. My hon. Friend obviously had in mind the fact that the Australian Government have had to cut imports of goods from this country, and therefore he thought it would solve the problem if we sent the industries to that country. Nothing is further from the truth. Why is Australia cutting its imports from Great Britain? Mainly because the balance of payments position at present shows that it is not exporting enough to this country and to other members of the Commonwealth to have goods from us in return. If my hon. Friend would look up the facts, he would find that one big reason is the falling agricultural production in Australia.
A few days ago "The Times" had an article on Australian food supplies which said:
Food production has remained almost at pre-war levels and vital industries such as wheat, meat, and butter production have all been heading for lower output, particularly at

a time when the seasons were, for the most part, favourable …
It goes even further and says:
The Government must play its part. Some things it can do are essential. More men must be placed on farms. No significant increase in production can be secure unless more labour is available.
In other words, the problem affecting Australia and Britain in this context is that if Australia could export more agricultural production, we would be only too happy to send the textiles. But whatever good would it do to send the textile industry to Australia? It would not solve the problem in any way. It was a pure piece of sentiment. It would not help Australia to feed any more people; it can hardly feed its own population now. What Australia is needing is not a textile industry but people to develop its basic resources, such as food and raw materials. It does no good at all to speak in such sentimental terms.
I want to come to what I believe is the fundamental economic problem that we have to solve, partly through migration. We have to judge where it is best to have our population and to be producing goods. The usual idea about emigration to the Dominions is that if we could spread our population, and perhaps our industries, we should then have Britain not so vulnerable to movements in world trade.
It is said, for example, that because we have 50 million people here and are highly specialised, when there is a movement in world trade that affects other countries' imports of our goods, a highly concentrated population like ours will very easily suffer. This is not a problem just of Great Britain alone. It is a problem that faces the whole sterling area of which we are a part, and we must look at it in that context.
The main problem that will face us is not merely something on which we cannot put our finger; it is the movements in the United States economy. What we shall be facing in the next five, 10 or 20 years is the impact of the United States on the sterling area and the Commonwealth. As I said last November, if there is a slight movement in the American economy, we quite easily have a very deep recession, with a balance of payments crisis, in this country; we lose gold and are subject to the present kind of import cuts.
This is the question, therefore, I want to pose. What kind of migration do we need to help the sterling area to preserve its immunity from the movements in world trade, of which the United States will be the main source? That is the problem, and that is the only real reason for altering the present balance of population inside the Commonwealth. We need to know whether our policy will help us to meet our trading problems with the rest of the world. When that is analysed, it comes down to the problem of the American impact on the rest of the world and how we can adjust ourselves to it.
Let me give a few background facts before I say what effect this has upon our migration policy. The size of the United States can be judged by comparing its gross national product—its national income—with that of other countries. In 1938, for example, in comparison with the whole of Western Europe plus Canada—I do not have the figures for the sterling area—the size of the United States was about double. By 1951, it is three times as great. The gross national income of the United States is now 330 billion dollars, and that of Western Europe 104 billion dollars. By compound interest and at the present rates of expansion, the United States will soon have advanced to four time the size of Western Europe and Canada, and in the 1960s to five times, and even six times as great.
We have seen by our own unfortunate experiences the impact that the United States movements can have on the whole of the rest of the world. Take an American recession like the one which occurred in 1931. The result of that recession was that American imports from the sterling area dropped to 20 per cent. of their former level. The result of the 1938 recession in the United States was a fall to something like 50 per cent. of their imports from the sterling area. Even a minor recession like that of 1949, when there was a falling off in purchasing by the United States, meant a drop of 20 per cent. in purchases from the sterling area. That is the kind of impact that American movements can have upon us.
In 1950 and 1951, exactly the same thing happened. In 1950 we had a boom in the sterling area. Our products were selling at high prices as the result of post-Korean re-armament. We were reaping the advantages of devaluation and we

cut our dollar imports. It was a boom year for sterling's trading position. But in 1951 the reverse happened. The situation was reversed with the cessation of American stockpiling and the consequent slump in prices of sterling raw materials; then in addition we had a carry-over from 1950—a hangover, it might be called—of too high a volume of purchasing by the Australian Government, and by ourselves also, from the rest of the world. But the same lesson is present: that if there is a movement mainly in the American economy, we suffer very greatly indeed. In 1951, we lost £600 million worth of gold and we had to make the panic cuts in our imports.
In these circumstances, what is the temptation that faces us? Is it to say that what we have to do through migration policy in the British Commonwealth is to make it into a self-sufficient bloc in the rest of the world in order to isolate ourselves, to immunise ourselves, from American recession; that the whole essence of our migration policy should be to get ourselves into a full employment bloc as the sterling area, as the British Commonwealth, so that we are then quite immunised from these movements in the American economy. That would be the only justification we can see for the kind of migration that is talked about sentimentally on both sides of the House.
When hon. Members say that a high population in this country is too precarious, what is meant is that, at bottom, the problem facing us is to get ourselves in protection against movements in world trade that inflict themselves on this country from time to time with disastrous consequences. To take the argument to its next stage, I repeat that it means that we then have to envisage trying to make the sterling area immune from these movements.
That temptation is very strong indeed. It might mean that we have to start depopulating this country in such a way that we develop in the Commonwealth resources which will help to feed this country and to supply it with raw materials now bought outside the Commonwealth. On the other hand, we should be de-populating the country of industries which are mainly dependent on sales to the dollar area and areas where the fluctuations in trade would start.
What the sentimentalists are trying to tell us is that in effect we ought to cut


the numbers of textile workers here and send them to grow food in Australia, which would be the way of immunising the sterling area from movements in world trade; or that we should send highly productive workers of various kinds to Australia, Canada and New Zealand to produce basic raw materials—primary products—which we need and which the sterling area needs to develop for itself so that its economy can be complementary and less reliant upon outside countries.
To break down the problem in this way exposes how shallow are some of the thoughts which we hear expressed, because we really cannot envisage the kind of movements in population that are involved. It does not help to take a whole industry to Australia. It would only help us in our trading relationships in the world if we develop the kind of things which would make us independent of the dollar area.
In view of this, can we in fact, apart from the difficulties even of transferring the right sort of labour to do the right sort of production, try to make the British Commonwealth into a self-sufficient area, and is that a good thing to do? I do not think it is. I think that what we need at this stage of history is not what has been suggested this evening, an Empire conference on the problem, or an Empire economic conference which would embrace also the problem of migration and the best dispersal of population, but a Western conference on the whole subject. I am not enamoured of conferences generally; and perhaps the time is not yet ripe for such a particular conference.
The essential problem is to get American investors, privately or through their Government, sufficiently interested in coming into the sterling area so that we can develop the whole area together. Then it will be in the interests of American capital and the American nation as a whole to prevent slump situations hitting the sterling area at every stage. If we could have integration between the sterling area and the dollar area the United States would be keen to prevent the kind of recession which in 1949—a very minor one—hit us to the extent of a fall of 20 per cent. in purchases by the United States from the overseas sterling area.
I am sure that is the right way of going about it. If we can get the sort of economic study which will show how the Commonwealth is to be developed with American capital and partly with British capital, we can get an interest in the totality of the problem involved and match the effort to that kind of development. But to talk sentimentally in the meantime will not do any good at all. I do not think it would be any good to try to make the sterling area into a full employment bloc cutting off its trading relationship with the rest of the world, because that inevitably will involve us in cutting highly productive labour in industry in this country and sending it to produce, at a lower productive level, raw materials and food in order to make the whole area self-sufficient. In a sense, it would be suicidal and not helping our standard of living to increase at the rate at which it would increase if we could keep the benefits of specialisation we have built up in the British Isles.
I think this is all the more possible at this stage of history because of the political development of the Commonwealth which has been going on since 1945. None of this idea of a co-ordinated development of the Commonwealth and getting American interest in it could have been possible in, say, 1945, 1946, or 1947 for two reasons. The first reason is that at that time we did not even know whether the Commonwealth and the sterling area were likely to survive at all.
At the end of the war we were in a position in which it looked very likely that India and the Asiatic members of the Commonwealth would disappear. We had not had an Imperial conference for many years, and it was not until the historic occasion in May, 1946, that the present Leader of the Opposition called a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers that we began to get this new form of British Commonwealth which is now more closely knit and more unified than ever we thought would emerge from the difficulties of the war.
Finally, of course, it was helped to survive by those very great statesmanlike decisions of freedom within the Commonwealth for India and Ceylon, and the freedom to leave the Commonwealth—but to remain associated—as in the case of Burma. We have assured the political survival of the Commonwealth which was in great doubt at the end of the war. Now


we are at a stage when we can begin to look at the problem of developing it further, and we have the political foundations to enable us to do so.
Secondly, we have come to the stage where the American Government and the American nation as a whole have over the past five years developed an extraordinary interest in making their resources available to the rest of the world for development. Nobody dreamed in 1945—and here I do not want to be guilty of exaggeration, because we want the American nation to go much further in its programmes, such as under Point Four—that we would have five years of extraordinary progress in American realisation of her obligations as the biggest nation in the world.
If we can now clinch the double advantage we have reached of a good political foundation of the Commonwealth and American interest in world development and treat the whole question in terms of economic development of the Commonwealth with American help, we can begin to get a migration pattern which suits economic facts and not just the sentiment that has been so glibly expressed in the House this afternoon.
If we do it that way we will be solving the main problem which I tried to pose at the beginning of my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) were employing the old argument, that automatic dispersal means automatic freedom from the risks of world trade. It does not mean anything of the sort if we are not solving the whole sterling area problem of the impact on it of the dollar area.
If we get American capital interested in this development and a Western diplomatic conference in which America is committed to help in the whole process of development, we shall be getting the dollar area anxious to be a stable factor in world economic affairs, and to that extent we shall be taking away the necessity for thinking of the sterling area as a full employment, isolated, immune bloc from the rest of the world.
I believe that is the underlying economic problem which is being skirted

throughout the whole debate, interesting although it has been. We have to face the really basic problem of what in the end will be the good or bad economic results of our policy, or to look at it the other way round, we have to decide what economic policy we are trying to achieve and then fit our migration policy to it.
In the meantime, I hope we can stop sentimental talk in this House and in the whole country and get down to economic discussions. The best job the British Government could do at this juncture is to have an economic study of the problem in its basic essentials and, at a later date—when we can get the dollar interest in the problem—have a Western economic conference so that we can see what is to be the future of the whole sterling area. Then, please, let us have a thoroughly good migration policy if—but only if—it fits the economic facts of the situation.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) appears to think the whole of this debate has been based on sentiment. I consider the debate has been an excellent one, but not quite so forthcoming as it might have been. Neither my hon. and learned Friend nor the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) treated this problem with the urgency that many of us feel is due to it.
The hon. Member for Northfield talked about sentiment, but so far as I can see he was talking in terms of the 19th century. He seemed to think we were still in the age when all the world was waiting to send us food at something under the cost of production and was awaiting our manufactured goods in exchange.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) spoke about the setting up of a cotton factory in Australia. That appeared to me to be a very true picture of what is happening. The Australians are producing cotton and they are not prepared to send their raw materials for us to process and to send back to them the processed article. If we do not go to some of these countries which have the raw material and process it on the spot someone else will, and our own factories will stand idle.

Mr. Chapman: Would not the hon. Member agree that the position I was endeavouring to outline as that Australia needs to grow food. Australia cannot feed her own population, let alone any more. How would it help either the population or the country to send textile workers to Australia? What Australia needs is people to develop her basic resources and food.

Mr. Baldwin: I think that the hon. Member is quite wrong. Australia can produce more food than she is producing at the present time, but is not prepared to send it to us in exchange for cotton materials which she herself can make. If we send out industries to these countries they will produce the food for the people.
We must have regard to our export trade which, although a record, is not sufficient to buy the food and raw material necessary to keep this country going; with the result that we are at present sending abroad gold to make up the balance. That cannot continue and the sooner this country faces up to the fact that we have to spread our population right throughout the Commonwealth the better it will be.
We cannot maintain 50 million people in this country. We have too many people at the moment planning the lives of other people, and not enough engaged in productive work. If we could take a couple of million people out of offices and put them into production it would be better for the country. When I see the underground railways spewing out crowds of people every morning I wonder whether one in every 20 will be doing a productive job. The sight horrifies me, and the sooner we wake up to the fact that we have to spread our population the better it will be.
I am not suggesting mass migration. I do not believe in that. I believe in planned migration and the Migration Council is endeavouring to bring that about. Out of a total population of about 74 million white people spread over seven million square miles of the British Commonwealth we have 50 million in this little country of 98,000 square miles, which is a completely unbalanced state of affairs.
Several hon. Members have put the position regarding Australia and Canada very fairly. I would say to the hon. Member for Northfield that it is wrong

to say that we are trying to set up a sterling bloc. The Government want to break down blocs so that we can get freedom of exchange, and trade freely one with another.
I wish to refer to a part of the world which has not been mentioned, East and Central Africa. There is a vast country which has mineral wealth almost equal to that of the United States, except in the case of oil. We have assumed a great responsibility for the African native. We have brought him along the road to civilisation and it is our duty to continue to take him along that road. He is increasing in numbers, his population is doubling every 25 years; and unless industry is further developed the African native will not be able to maintain himself on the land, and starvation will result.
I want to see the integration of all the African States and the development of the raw materials which exist there in such abundance. Such a policy will not only help the African, but will enable us to spread our population and to disperse some of our armament industry. We should remember that we are very vulnerable in the matter of industry as well as population.
We should take a lesson from the Russians and get our armament industry as far away from the sphere of the atom bomb as possible. There is nowhere better than the middle of Africa. I hope, therefore, that the Government will come out with something much more forthright than is represented by this Bill, which does not represent a sufficient answer to the problems of migration. If the Bill were shelved for 12 months and something better conceived during that time, I am sure that the Government would win the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We must spread out in the world, as our forefathers did before us. In the "Daily Telegraph" today I read of two boys from Stepney who had been existing in various London parks for something like a week. They collected empty bottles and sold them for sufficient to buy food for themselves. They slept in a lorry. Those boys were showing that spirit of enterprise and adventure which I believe is still in existence but is latent. I believe that that spirit will enable some of our young people to go out into the


world, if they get an opportunity, as their forefathers did before them.
I should like to see the Government set up some board similar to those created under the first Empire Settlement Act in order to make possible bilateral conversations with the countries which want to take our emigrants. That is a much better way of doing it than by having an Empire Council, on which the representative of every country has a different viewpoint. I therefore hope that some such board will be set up with power to get in touch with the receiving end—the countries which want our emigrants—and which will have the power to take the necessary action.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Like so many hon. Members who enter this Chamber, I had, when I came in, no intention of speaking. I was impelled to do so by observing the Patronage Secretary patrolling the Benches on the other side asking people either not to speak at all or to speak quite briefly. I wish to speak quite briefly, bearing in mind, as always, the views of the Patronage Secretary.
I want to refer to some remarks made from both sides of the House, but more particularly from this side, and to say what I think about them. We have heard some talk about a newly-coined phrase—"Imperial integration." I would be much happier to see this question regarded as a two-way job, for after all. South Africa did give us H. G. Owen Smith as full back for our England rugby team.
I should prefer to talk of Commonwealth co-operation, and I should like to get away from this term "Imperial integration" or from the attitude of mind which regards this Bill as an Imperial settlement Bill. Why can it not be called a Commonwealth Settlement Bill? The Amendment which has been put forward speaks specifically, not of Northern or Southern Rhodesia and whether the people speak Afrikaans, but in geographical terms of New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
Reference has been made to the achievements of the Elizabethan age, and I hope we are now entering a similar Elizabethan age. At any rate, according to the hon. Member for Leominster

(Mr. Baldwin), we have many youngsters in Stepney who possess the same characteristics as Sir John Hawkins. In the former Elizabethan age, we had only seven million people on these islands living in an agricultural society, but, in the last two and a half or three centuries, we have become an advanced industrialised society and our population has increased.
I am now speaking only of the English-speaking peoples, which have now increased to 140 million. No other race has multiplied so much or so quickly, and this is the process which some person once described as "this Diaspora spreading about the world." I believe that its influence upon the world today and in the future will have more effect than the dispersion of the Jews in Biblical and medieval times. So we have seen all these changes occur.
If it is said that the chief exports of Norway and Scotland in the past have been their men and some of their women, because of the economic conditions in that bleak northern climate, our chief export in future will need to be not men, but families, and it is upon this new basis that people must go to the Commonwealth to populate the wide open spaces.
May I now say a word or two about these alleged wide open spaces, about keeping them open and whether they are so inviting an area for people from the United Kingdom to go to? I wish to pick up one or two of the woolly comments that have been made in the last hour or two. I heard—and I could not believe my own ears—the astonishing statement that Queensland could support 20 million people. Most of the area of Queensland is well within the tropics, and no Australian, such as Griffith Taylor their eminent geographer, would subscribe to that view.
I do beg of hon. Members, when it is intended we shall have a solid and valuable debate, to look at the Commonwealth as a whole and see where we can place people, without making comments of that kind. Again, I once asked for an optimum figure for the population of Canada. The Canadian Dominion has many waste areas of snow and pine, and, when it is suggested that an oil pipeline between the lakes of the East and


British Columbia in the West would provide an opportunity for Lancashire industrialists to invest their money, we really ought to have a look at the country which it would serve. Let us think carefully of the optimum population of areas of that kind, and do not let us talk glibly of the enormous spaces which are, so to speak, simply inviting people to go to them.
We have heard once or twice this evening that in Australia population is shifting from the bush towards the coast. The five capital cities of Australia contain over one-third of the population of that continent. Let us look at this matter sensibly and do not let us beguile or gull ourselves into believing that there are these potentialities. It has also been said that Australia's food output has been declining. It is important, therefore, that before sending people there we should give them a true picture of all the difficulties.
It is no good telling me that because in 1870 my grandfather went out to the Blue Mountains or to the Pacific seaboard, today I shall find it equally easy to go there. Since those days we in England have become a much more sophisticated urban society, and if we went to Australia many of us would not want to go to the upper waters of the Burdekin River or even beyond the Blue Mountains. Many of us would wish to stay in the cities and do the jobs which we have done in the past. Let us pick our settlers and our future pioneers in these Dominion territories with great care. I repeat, let us not give them a false picture of life overseas before they leave these shores.
Without wishing to be personal, I wish to take up a comment made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). He was speaking, I thought somewhat emotionally, about the question of populating specific areas of Australia, and he said that we should not "poison the thirsty horse." I take it that the horse to which he referred was Australia and that it was thirsty for population. I did not quite understand what he meant when he spoke about poisoning it.

Mr. Langford-Holt: I want, first of all, to make it perfectly clear that in no instance did I specifically refer to

Australia. What specific remarks I made in my speech were made about Canada. I was referring to the whole question. I said that these open spaces were thirsty for men, and I drew an analogy by saying that if they could not get the type of people they wanted they would have to accept what types they could get.

Mr. Johnson: I am glad the hon. Member has now got what I think is the correct view of the matter, which is that if we cannot send people to these Dominions ourselves we have no moral basis at all for denying entry to Western Europeans. I would go even further, and say that in those circumstances we have no moral basis for denying entry to people of any colour at all. Without going into the matter of the white-Australia policy, if we do not populate these Northern territories ourselves then I maintain we have no moral basis at all for denying entry to other people in our multi-racial Commonwealth about which we have heard so much from both sides of the House.
One word about the Commonwealth conference which has been suggested. I am not in favour of having such a conference for the consideration of this matter. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), I think it is fraught with many difficulties. In the case of Canada alone, there is a large bloc of French-speaking Canadians who might not, perhaps, see eye to eye with us on this matter of emigration to the Canadian Dominion. With regard to South Africa, there might be difficulties regarding how many went and who actually did go. Let us then not talk in high-sounding terms about Commonwealth conferences. We had them in 1931 and in other years. They begin with a lot of ballyhoo and lead in the end to nothing at all.
Let us have bilateral talks, without high-sounding publicity, between men who know their job. Let us talk with people on the spot. Let us ask how many immigrants they want, where they want them and what kind of Anglo-Saxons they want. Let us make a co-operative Commonwealth and not talk so much about integrating parts of the Empire into the hub or metropolitan centre over here.
I have been staggered by some of the figures given today. I was amazed to find that in 1931, for example, there were more people coming into the United Kingdom than were going out to the 25 million square miles that we and our kith and kin possess overseas. We need to populate those areas and those areas need our help, economic and otherwise, as we need theirs.
It is absolutely vital to peace that we populate those areas, whether they lie near monsoon Asia or whether they lie south of the Sahara desert near South Africa. We should populate these areas with Anglo-Saxons who have our ideas of what the future of the world should be. It is vital for the future of the world that peoples in Western Europe who have a high outlook and high moral basis for international dealing should go out to these lands beyond the seas.

8.42 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): rose—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will pardon me for intervening for a moment, I should like to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that no voice has been heard at all throughout the debate in opposition to the Amendment. I am at least one person who intended to speak, but no one who is opposed to the Amendment has had the opportunity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The Amendment was moved. I cannot say what is in the minds of hon. Members.

Mr. MacMillan: Before you came to the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was told I would have an opportunity later on. Do I understand that the debate is not closed by the Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no Closure Motion at all. I am merely calling upon the Minister to speak.

Sir W. Monckton: No one occupying my present position could complain of the tone and temper of this debate. Indeed, many who have spoken have emphasised that they desire to approach this problem as a Commonwealth problem and not on a party or partisan basis. Before I address myself to the Bill and the Amendment, I should like to

congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson)—the son of an old friend of mine and my master for some time when he was in Office—on this his first appearance in our debates.
As the House will have heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the position in relation to this problem of migration is that during the 30 years of the operation of these Empire and Commonwealth Settlement Acts the policy of encouraging migration from the United Kingdom to the other Commonwealth countries has been constantly reaffirmed by the various Governments in power. That desire to encourage and assist inter-Commonwealth migration is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government today. As the House has heard from my hon. and learned Friend, from time to time, between 1930 and 1937 and during the Second World War, there have been periods during which it was impossible to give effect in any way to that policy. Indeed, the flow was not merely stayed but reversed. But the policy has remained the same, and is still so today.
I think one of the advantages of the debate and the very full discussion which has ranged over a wide field is that a great deal of publicity will be attracted to the importance of the subject of the discussion—and publicity, I hope, attracted to the determination of Her Majesty's Government to do their best to further this inter-Commonwealth migration.

Mr. William Ross: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to leave that impression. So far, one of the sources from which migration has flowed freely in the past has been Scotland, and the point of view of Scotland, which does not accord exactly with what the Minister has just said, has not yet been expressed in this debate.

Sir W. Monckton: No doubt, in due course views which have not been expressed will be stated.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reply to them?

Sir W. Monckton: I think that so far as the debate has gone up to the present, it will be of advantage that publicity


should be given to the determination of Her Majesty's Government to which I have referred.
One word about the Bill itself. It has been treated as though it were something wholly insufficient. Of course, whatever may be the future course on which the Government's intent may carry them it is at least essential that these Acts which have been in force for 30 years should be carried on for this other five years. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) who asked for figures about the five main receiving Commonwealth countries—Canada. New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia—and the trend of the figures. I think that if I took the last five years the gross figure would be more than 90,000 per annum and the net figure about 70,000. I have taken the years 1946 to 1951. If my hon. Friend wants further details I will give them to him; but at least the figures were not going down. They went up, if anything, during 1951. That is the general trend of migration during those five years.
It is not without interest to observe that net figure of 70,000, in the light of the figure of 100,000 to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) referred as the sort of figure which at the best we could hope to allow to go from this country. That, I think, is the objective to which he referred. I shall seek to show, as I come to deal with the suggestions relating to the optimum, that it would not be very helpful if I were to attempt now to give an optimum figure for this migration. I say that for this reason. In order to give one, quite apart from the necessity for study which has been obvious not only to the present Government but to its predecessor in office, there are so many assumptions which have to be made—assumptions about defence, the strategic position, trade and food.
Science does not stand still, and the problem of food in 50 years' time—and that is one of the periods which was mentioned—may differ greatly from the problem as we find it today. Therefore, rather than commit oneself to a policy involving, as one of my hon. Friends said, 10 million to 15 million, over a period of 50 years, I think it is better to adhere to the position as it is now and the facts as

we now know them. I shall endeavour to deal with them later on.
I have said how much migration—not all of it, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, under this Bill, but certainly under this Bill so far as Australia is concerned—has gone forward in these last years. The Amendment calls for a much larger and more imaginative scheme. I have said that I hesitate, in spite of all that I have heard, to commit myself to what the Government might now think will eventually prove to be desirable, because I think that would be trying to plan economy too much in the air.
If one is going to indulge in a migration scheme of the order of 10 million to 15 million persons, there are a great many questions which have to be posed and answered. There are vital problems; problems of defence and political problems—as to what line should be taken and what attitude can be taken about the future of this country if its population is dropped by 15 million. There are also the economic problems into which some hon. Members have gone in the course of the debate.
There are two such problems about which I should like to say a few words. The first is with regard to agriculture. It seems to me that one can over-simplify these problems and think of emigrants as though they are all consumers, and immigrants as though they are all producers. It is not as easy as that. If we did have a very large-scale system of emigration we should not be able to keep the same agricultural force as we have now. Even if it were assumed that we should be able to do so, although we should then no doubt be nearer feeding the population which remained and would not have to import so much for that purpose, we should still have to produce and export to obtain the raw materials which would still be needed for the industry in the country of the depleted population. So one must not over-simplify the problem by making the casual assumption that all emigrants are consumers and all immigrants are producers.
The second matter is that we already have our problem of an ageing population. When one has an ageing population it makes it all the more difficult to send overseas those sorts of men whom the receiving countries particularly want


—the skilled men and single workers in productive industry. That element of selection is a very important fact which must be taken into account in considering the possibilities for the future. If we postulate a very large-scale emigration, I would say that it is necessary to take into account the fact that the problem of taking a selection from an ageing population will be greatly accentuated.
I am only saying this in order to lay before the House the dangers which seem to me to lie in trying at too early a stage to lay down a plan as to exactly how many we mean to go in the changing circumstances of the years which lie before us. I do not intend to detain the House to any extent with the social aspect of the problem. We do not want to see towns left derelict because the population has gone away, and the amenities which we have been brought up to expect thrown away, without serious consideration.
Those are broad questions, and it is all to the good that they should have been discussed in this House. I can assure hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion that the views which they have expressed will be carefully considered in the appropriate quarters above my level; but I do not think it would be right that I should offer a cut and dried optimum figure for this discussion. I want to turn to the question of an energetic pursuit on the lines of present policy rather than turn aside to these rather uncertain figures for the future. First of all we have to see what are the facts of the immediate position.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the problem of migration is not a matter for the United Kingdom alone, or any other unit in the family of the Commonwealth alone, but for the Commonwealth as a whole. It is a problem which is not to be decided by any one of us in isolation. What we have to do is to take into account the interests of the United Kingdom, the interests of the receiving countries and the interests of the migrants themselves. From my own point of view, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say that one of the problems is that of manpower. I seek to approach the manpower element in the migration problem not from the narrow viewpoint of the United Kingdom

interest alone, but from that of the interest of the Commonwealth as a whole.
I have already mentioned the problem which arises through the desire of the receiving country to select. If we start by looking at the matter from the point of the United Kingdom, we should naturally expect the receiving country to try to get skilled men for preference. In the case of Australia, however—and here is the first concrete example of the advantages which flow from the powers under these Acts—under an agreement dated 1946 and renewed thereafter, it has been possible, by co-operation, to try to persuade them—and not without success, as the House will hear—to take a cross-section of the people when they take immigrants into Australia from this country.
Perhaps I may give the figures at this stage. Of course, if they said, "We want miners and only miners," or "We want skilled engineers only," we should be severely hurt by losing that very important element, of which we ourselves are short. Instead, this is what they have done. I have taken the figures from 16th May, 1951, to 29th February, 1952; and I find, if I may give round figures, that the number who sailed under the assisted scheme was just under 37,000. Of them, 13,900 were wage earners, so that their dependants accounted for nearly 23,000. That is a reasonable start to taking a fair cross-section.
But that is not all. These people were not all selected from particular trades. In fact, they were drawn from 163 different trades, and from none in excessive numbers, so that that example illustrates how, if we have the powers under the Bill and an agreement in pursuance of it, we have an opportunity in this country to influence the Dominions in the selection which they make. In fact, that selection has been fairly made.
There is one other aspect of this matter on which I should like to say a few words. I have said that we are short of skilled men, and I think our duty is not to look at the matter from the United Kingdom angle alone. If we did that we should say, "We do not want to let any of the skilled men go." But if we take the example of 100,000 workers—I am thinking of both skilled and unskilled workers—out of our 23,500,000 working population, and look at the


matter from the angle of the Commonwealth as a whole, this is what we see.
If they go to productive work in Australia, we can say that they will be an extra 100,000 in a working population of 3,500,000, so that the impact of that addition to the Dominion's strength is several times greater than the loss which we suffer here if we look at it from the angle of our total working population. I am not saying that that is the final, conclusive approach, but it shows the importance of the contribution which we can make to those who have a smaller working population.
Perhaps I may stop there in my remarks from the United Kingdom point of view, because I want to say a word or two, if I may, about the attitude of the receiving countries. If we are looking at all the facts, then in order to complete the study we should not overlook what are the difficulties in some of the receiving countries—and these are not matters for criticism but are largely inevitable. One of the difficulties in the case of Australia, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that they have a very acute housing shortage so that they cannot take an unlimited number of new immigrants. Secondly, they apprehend inflationary results if they have large-scale immigration at a time when their policy is disinflationary.
Those are two elements which create difficulties in the way of sending large numbers to Australia. Nevertheless, we find about 50,000 per annum going there in spite of the difficulties. We cannot send them faster than they can be absorbed economically into Australia. It is true that not only we but other people are sending migrants there, but that is due to the fact that the Dutch, for instance, or the Italians, who go there are agricultural workers, whilst we are not sending agricultural workers at present. So we should not expect all the migrants to be British. However, what I am pointing out is that 50,000 per annum are going, and that we cannot get them over there faster than they can be properly absorbed, but that, subject to these limitations, we do everything we can to encourage them, and I would tell the House a little of what we do to encourage and help migration.

Mr. Paget: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him a question? Why do they find that the receipt of immigrants is inflationary? It would strike me as being the opposite.

Sir W. Monckton: It is the large numbers of immigrants that worries them. If large numbers of immigrants go in, the claim on the capital resources increases. That is the contention. It may be right or wrong. I am merely saying that that is one of the things they say. It creates difficulties for them if too many people go. But under these powers efforts really are made to encourage people to go, and I should like to tell the House a little—very shortly—of what is done in my own Department in this regard.
First of all, as to publicity. Australia House supplies leaflets and application forms which are taken to all the local offices of my Department throughout the country, and there displayed. Then there are tours which the representatives of Australia House undertake for recruitment and selection in the regions outside London, and those tours are arranged by the Ministry of Labour. I happen to have the 1950 figures here, and I find that there were 50 in that year—public tours, which meant that there were public meetings at which the prospects under the assisted passage scheme were explained; and there were selection tours at which individuals were interviewed on 1,444 days in that year—separate days in separate places—at 1,000 centres at which 12,900-odd applicants were interviewed and selected, apart from their women folk and dependants.
Of course, on the other side of the picture of the assistance which we are only too ready to give in the promotion of this migration—on the other side of the picture we are consulted in our turn about advertisements, so that they do not advertise for men of whom we are particularly short, and also about the areas of recruitment; for instance, in places where there is a shortage of miners they do not, by our persuasion, appeal to them to emigrate.
I suggest that what I have put before the House now shows that in the case of Australia, where the powers of this Act have been used, they are being energetically used to a proper purpose. It is quite true that it is the only Dominion, the only


part of the Commonwealth, in whose case these powers have been used. But I do not for a moment want to minimise the Government's appreciation of the importance of the potentialities of Canada, of which, indeed, I am very well aware; and we would do all we could, in combination with the Canadian authorities, to promote immigration into Canada from here, but there are difficulties, and one must face them as well as seeing the possibilities that lie in front of us.
Since 1951 the Canadian Government have been advancing loans to selected candidates drawn from the United Kingdom and Western Europe, but there are difficulties in this. First of all, there is the difficulty, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, about dollar liabilities which have to be incurred when we send people over there. But, perhaps, even more difficult still is the fact that the assisted scheme of which I am speaking applies to wage earners only, so that what they are trying to get, and are getting by this method, are wage earners and not their dependants over there. That creates considerable difficulties. It is a decision which they make for reasons which satisfy them, but it makes it difficult to get the cross-section principle applied in full. A selection rather than a cross-section results when the powers of the Act are not used.
The right hon. Gentleman said that one ought not to use pressure. I agree with that, but if one refrains from pressure it is very difficult to ensure that a fair cross-section is taken. One can try to persuade, but there is no method, as there is in the case where there is an agreement, by which one can do more than that. Both the Department and the Government are willing and anxious to co-operate with Canada. We know the potentials of Canada, but in the difficulties which exist at the moment we do not see a likelihood of very large numbers migrating there.

Mr. Carson: My right hon. and learned Friend seems to have left the subject of Australia. Does he propose to say a word about assisted passages to Australia and what Her Majesty's Government's proposals are for the future and what they will pay?

Sir W. Monckton: I certainly intended to do that. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the figure of contribution

towards the assisted passage schemes had been reduced. All I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) is that at the moment the actual figure is under discussion between the two Governments and no decision has been reached.

Mr. Carson: Can we have an assurance that there is no foundation for the rumour that the contribution of Her Majesty's Government is to be cut out altogether?

Sir W. Monckton: When I referred to "the figure," I meant that there will be a figure. I think that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gordon Walker: There is one other point about Canada and cross-section migration. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously consider having discussions with the Canadian Government about the real importance of getting not a selective migration of this sort but a cross-section migration?

Sir W. Monckton: It is very much in the minds of the Government that every effort should be made, if possible, to obtain that by persuasion. I fully appreciate the importance of the matter.

Mr. Baxter: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves the subject of Canada, a country in which he should linger when he gets a chance, may I ask him if he intends to get in touch with the Canadian Government, especially the Finance Minister, about allowing migrants from here to take out their money? I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government at Ottawa are ready to discuss that point.

Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly bring that matter to the notice of my noble Friend and also my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is the best way to deal with it.
I just want to mention some of the other Dominions concerned, for we shall otherwise not have the facts about all the various receiving countries. New Zealand has not been mentioned a great deal. New Zealand has something like 9,000 immigrants a year. She is not a place which can absorb a large number of additional people. The selection is very carefully done, and New Zealand


does not feel able to contemplate taking more. She does not want to take middle-aged persons, so there is no question in this instance of large quantities.
Southern Rhodesia has been mentioned. I only wish to say about Southern Rhodesia that there are housing difficulties there, and at the moment there is the added difficulty that she does not feel able to encourage immediate additional migration because of her financial position and her efforts to defend the pound. Looking over the whole field, one can fairly say that there are practical and real limitations which will have to be taken into account when one gets towards the stage of working out at any one moment an optimum figure.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom), asked whether directed immigration was before the two committees of which he spoke. I will get him fuller information about this. I understand that it is not directly before them but that it will come before them in the course of their work. If I find any more information I will let him have it.
There was mention of a Dominion conference or bilateral talks, and a number of those interested in this matter take the view that there is much to be said, as I see there is, for bilateral talks. They avoid a great deal of difficulty and embarrassment. My noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will engage in such talks when the opportunity offers. I was asked about a Minister for Emigration, and the House will appreciate that I can hardly answer that one. The suggestion has been made and no doubt it will be observed in other more important quarters.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick asked me a question about statistics, of which I appreciate the importance. He did not expect me to deal with it here and now, but I will not overlook the importance of the distinction between emigrants by air and emigrants by sea.
I have sought to cover in a short compass the practical matters which ought to be taken into account by anyone who tries to deal with this matter. I suggest that I have shown enough to encourage the House to feel that the Bill ought to

go forward and that there is no need for the Amendment. Without indulging in the sentiment which has been decried by one or two hon. Members, I appreciate that a great deal of the strength and solidarity of the British Commonwealth has been due to large-scale emmigration in earlier centuries, and the sense of unity which has come from the common stock is something which seems to me to be of great importance.
I recommend this Bill to the House, because although modest it is a real contribution and a realistic approach to the whole problem and it enables one to carry forward the idea and the intention that a steady stream of emigrants should be maintained, and that every opportunity which offers for increasing the flow of that stream should be taken. I can assure the House that in my Ministry we shall go on with our contacts with any of the Commonwealth countries which choose to work with us, and I am sure that upon a different level my noble Friend will take the same course. I can only say that I am grateful to the House for the suggestions that have been made, and if I have not replied to them individually I shall not overlook them.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I should like to say a few words on the other side of the argument. The Minister has satisfied a good many of the points of objection which I should have put against the Amendment. I feel we are always in danger of discussing emigration, especially the emigration contemplated in the Amendment, in something of a panic atmosphere as seen against the rising tide of unemployment. It is certainly an emotional atmosphere. In times of full employment the question of mass emigration is not taken up with such enthusiasm in the House, but only when unemployment begins to increase. I feel that the advice to emigrate is something of a counsel of despair, with which I am glad the Minister shows no too eager signs of associating himself.

Mr. de Freitas: One of the points I tried to make clear—and I hope I succeeded—was that I was looking at emigration as a method of helping the Dominions to develop, and was not concerned in any way with the points that my hon. Friend has in mind. I mention


that to make it quite clear that there are many who advocate emigration for reasons other than those which he has stated.

Mr. MacMillan: I appreciate the motives of my hon. Friend. I was not suggesting that he personally was guilty of advocating it purely from the point of view I have mentioned. Indeed, I have never heard it advocated as a substitute for a full employment policy from this side of the House. But I must say that I have felt the emotional atmosphere in which emigration is being related directly to heavy unemployment, for the solution of which there is no policy.
Because of past experience under Tory Governments, not only is my constituency opposed to emigration historically, but I have myself during the last 16 or 17 years in this House, on the occasions when emigration has been discussed, found myself almost instinctively opposed to it—to some extent, I confess, emotionally because of the experience of my constituents during the years of unemployment and forced emigration.
We are suffering from severe, prolonged unemployment in that area now. I know that the Minister is concerned about it, but he is also concerned about bigger problems in the rest of the country. I do not expect him to give more attention to my constituency than to any other, but I do expect him to give equal attention to it, especially when that unemployment is to a large degree in a textile producing industry.
With full employment in this country emigration has been almost irrelevant, at least, short term, and it is in the atmosphere of rising unemployment that people begin to offer this counsel of despair and think of mass emigration as the solution as it were in advance of a greater measure of unemployment than has yet, fortunately, hit this country, a sort of evasive action.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me for interrupting? Having moved the Amendment, I think I am entitled to make the comment that I drew the attention of the House to the fact that I myself, and, I hoped, others, would avoid using the phrase "mass emigration."

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member may have sought to avoid it, but it was

obviously in the minds of hon. Members who have spoken today. We can agree to differ even on the interpretation of his Amendment; but I must pay attention to the speeches of hon. Members who referred to mass emigration. Who are the people who are expected to emigrate? It is an extremely important thing to know. I do not think that the comfortable citizens of the country are expected to emigrate. There is no particular inducement for them to do so unless they will be even more comfortable somewhere else. I do not think that the average skilled worker in a good job, with prospects of security, is likely to be induced to leave that job and the security he has been enjoying, in the last few years, possibly for the first time in his life.
Therefore to whom are we to turn to find our emigrants, especially on a large scale? It comes down to the people who are not enjoying a decent standard either of security in employment or living. Though the Minister did not say he was prepared to introduce any large scale short-term plan, we are entitled to know where people are to be drawn from, how the selection is to be made, and what the inducements are to be once planned migration is undertaken as proposed.
The question arises not only what is the optimum for Canada, Australia and New Zealand but, also, what is the optimum for this country. The Minister was right in saying that because this is a country with an ageing population, there is an increasing liability for the maintenance of a pensionable population. We shall be faced not only with that problem, but we shall have added to it another one if we withdraw the people who could be providing both the reproduction of the population and the increased production of consumer and other goods, especially as labour wastage, owing to increasingly ageing character of the population, grows. It is an immense problem and a very difficult one.
One of my hon. Friends spoke about avoiding sentimentality and of getting down to the purely economic aspects of the subject. But one simply cannot do that with emigration. In the last analysis, emigration is an intimate, personal, human thing—even a sentimental thing, if you like. It is immediately


associated with the whole psychological background and the nature and environment of every person affected. My experience of emigrants, in the main, is that they are usually reluctant people, not by any means always drawn by incentives, but driven by hardships and lack of prospects, to a hopeful Utopia somewhere else.
In the main, those are the people who are to be expected to contribute to this stream—some hon. Members hoped for an ever-increasing stream—of emigration. There are some at least in the House who must be visualising more and more people becoming more and more discontented in this country and more willing and ready to break all these associations from their native environment—their jobs, their homes and the people around them—and to go off because there is no prospect for them in this country.
There is a danger from mass emigration in certain areas of the country more than in others. If emigration were not planned, if we embarked on it in present circumstances or as a possible anticipation of a greater unemployment problem than that which is now arising, we would land ourselves in very great difficulty from the strategic, the economic, the social and every point of view. At present we have already with us the evil effects of the depletion of population from certain regions of the country, including the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The effects in these areas are far more acute than in the rest of Britain simply because emigration was greater in proportion to population and at all times that from any other part of Great Britain.
The people were driven out by two things: the direct action of the landlords, with evictions and all the rest, and, second, the lack of prospects and a low standard of living which made almost any job anywhere throughout the world attractive for them away from the desperate poverty of their own country. These are poor incentives indeed and, surely, it is the wrong method of encouraging emigration. I am alarmed at the prospects of having a mass egress from my constituency and from many parts of the Highlands and Islands. New Zealand, particularly, and to a large extent Australia and Canada, obviously

prefer the people who are most likely to be most useful to them in the productive work that they accomplish: in other words, they are carefully selective of our younger and most skilled men and women.
We know something of the mobility of labour problems of this country and we know more as it goes on about the psychological difficulties and the physical difficulties, such as housing and the rest, connected with the mobility of labour. Probably no industrial population is more reluctant in this mobility than Great Britain. It may be because its people are more conservative in outlook and for many other reasons—I am not talking politically; they showed at the last Election that they were not; and they will show it increasingly as time goes on. But they are more reluctant than are the people in the United States, which have a heterogeneous population which is drawn from all parts of the world; and traditionally mobile. Here, we have a largely homogeneous population which has its own certain ways set through the centuries.
The mobility of labour is directly affected by this reluctance, as the Minister of Labour will know at the cost of a good many headaches at this time of diversion of labour from less essential industries to the more important ones from the point of view of exports and armaments production.
I happen to be the Chairman of a Government body known as the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel. It is drawn from Members on all sides of the House and includes representatives of the seven Highland county councils and other bodies in Scotland. One of our chief problems is to prevent any further de-population of the Highlands and Islands, not only to sustain the population and especially to keep the young, but to bring in new blood and new industries to sustain them.
I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is directly connected with this work and the problem of the Highlands and Islands, is here today. He must personally, and I know will immediately, acknowledge that one of the main problems we face in the Highlands and Islands is the problem of de-population and the increasingly ageing population. The


views and needs of an area like mine simply could not be represented except by opposition to this proposal and to any migration on a large scale. But we cannot be so parochial as not to recognise that, in greater or lesser degree, the same problem and the dangers connected with it affects the whole country.
I am very concerned with the danger of making emigration a substitute for a solution for unemployment, for, after all, we have to consider how far it lies within our power through policy and planning to overcome unemployment. We must try to probe how far present factors causing unemployment and tending to make emigration popular with some people opposite are permanent or caused by world factors outside; and to what extent they can be cured by a change of policy here. I hope that decisions will not be taken in panic, emotionally, or in fear of rising unemployment and result in mass emigration, when we know that that unemployment is caused by various policy moves by the Government.
While the Highlands and Islands have sent men and women to Canada, Australia, the United States and many parts of the world and while many have done well there, yet they have always gone reluctantly and as the last possible recourse. They would not go if they could help it. If 10 Highlanders go to Glasgow the first thing they do is to get together as 10 Highlanders acheing to have someone who can speak Gaelic. It is one of the extraordinary things that one of the results of that very clanishness and reluctance to leave their own homes is that, rather than be separated by going by ones and twos to Glasgow, or Edinburgh—my hon. Friend says "perhaps Edinburgh is not so bad"—they go in colonies to Canada or Australia.
But while that is the case there is also a deep reluctance and they prefer far, if possible at all, to stay at home. Half the songs of the Western Isles are songs about eviction, exile and separation from their native land and I believe the people in those areas will be more resistant to the idea of using migration to solve the problem of unemployment and a low standard of living—a problem caused by Government neglect by this and previous Governments in past generations—than anyone else in this country.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I want to say how appalled I am at some of the speeches made today, particularly by hon. Members who have been supporting the Amendment. While it is all very well for hon. Members to say that they are not pleading for mass emigration anyone who, on reading the Amendment, suggests that mass emigration is something we just dreamed of had better pay attention to what it puts forward. People who take the attitude that mass emigration should be encouraged at present have both feet firmly implanted in the clouds. We get the Minister of Labour pleading for aged workers to delay their retirement, because every man is needed to work for the welfare of this country, which, I suppose, is still the heart of the Empire. Then, next, we find hon. Gentlemen, who probably applauded the Minister, suggesting that what we need is mass migration, in the words of the Amendment
to take imaginative and decisive measures
in order that a smaller population should be able to be supported by the food supplies of this country.
I do not wish anyone to imagine that as a Scot, I am entirely opposed to migration. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) desired to make the point, and I wish to underline it, that Scots have in the past resorted to migration. If I took up any completely opposing side I would be opposing the national bard of Scotland who rushed to the defence of Scots who wished to migrate in probably one of the greatest satires ever written, "Address of Beelzebub," to Lord Glengarry:
They and be d—d! what right hae they
To meat or sleep, or light o' day!
Far less to riches, pow'r, or freedom,
But what your lordship likes to gie them?
The problem that was more or less the beginning of emigration in Scotland was the pursuit of freedom, the pursuit of the right to live which was denied them in this country. I am surprised my hon. Friend did not develop the point about how the Highlands were cleared and how those people about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) spoke so nobly, how that export of men from Scotland was achieved. It was a very reluctant export. We may go to New Zealand, Canada or Australia, and probably throughout the world, and find


that the Scottish accents of the descendants of those Scots is still as broad as ever. I think there are as many people of Scottish descent outside the country as inside Scotland.

Mr. G. Lindgren: There are nearly as many in London.

Mr. Ross: That is probably why London prospers.
There may yet be in Scotland and in England people who are restless and call for adventure. In opposing not only this Amendment but this Bill I do not suggest that the bar should be put up against these people. But I do object to the suggestion that there should be encouragement, exhortation and even planning for them to emigrate to the Colonies.
When we talk about the wide open spaces of Canada and Australia let us remember the problems of the Secretary of State for Scotland. There are wide open spaces in Scotland which have been created by the forced emigration of Scotsmen. If we want to find deserted villages, and clachans which once supported men, instead of spending £25 on a trip to the Continent we should spend it on touring through the Highlands of Scotland.
If one goes to Scotland, one will come to the silent glens, the glens of memory. This is the time to re-people these glens. The work has already been started; only in the past five years have we been able to stay the population drift from Scotland. This is no time for a new mass emigration scheme for the very people we need in Scotland, because we should remember that the people that are wanted in the Colonies and the Dominions are the very people whom we can least afford to send. The Colonies and Dominions do not want the aged and infirm. Are we in Scotland, then, with a population already unbalanced because of past migration, to be left with a still further ageing population because of the desire of some people to boost Colonial and Empire migration at the present time?
This Bill suggests that we can spend up to £1,500,000 a year on developing emigration. I would rather see that £1,500,000 spent in getting some of the Scots back into Scotland, and particularly into the Highlands of Scotland. I should like to persuade the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), whose

interest in the Highlands we all know, to emigrate.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I devote a substantial part of my limited income to going to the Highlands for a holiday every year?

Mr. Ross: I hope that the next time the hon. Gentleman goes into Scotland, he will not make plain that he is the hon. Member for Kidderminster who objected so much to the hydro-electric scheme, or he might find himself rather unwelcome in certain parts of the Highlands.
I hope that the people who have been suggesting this migration will think again. Much as I dislike the Amendment, I also dislike the Bill, but the approach of the Minister of Labour was eminently sensible. After all, he is the man who is faced with the task of finding the manpower for all the innumerable industries of the day, and the suggestion that has been put forward about an imaginative and large-scale scheme will not help in the slightest. Let us forget all the suggestions about a Minister for Migration, and let those people who have been attending to this problem attend a little more to the possibilities of building up the food supplies of Britain in Britain itself.
I am perfectly sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland wants to see beef production being developed in the Highlands of Scotland. Surely we do not need the Americans to do that for us, or even the Canadians, as some have been suggesting. Let us develop all the resources we have in our own country for our own country first. This is not just charity beginning at home, but essential work which must be done here in this country. Scotland offers a particular example of the way in which money can be well spent and in which imaginative and decisive schemes applied to the Highlands of Scotland might well be put into operation.
We have made a start with hydroelectricity. The power is there, and the wealth is there in the form of the land. All that is needed is the organisation and power of the State to develop, if private industry will not develop, the latent resources of the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. Langford-Holt: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I think the Minister of Labour deflated a great deal of hot air which is so often talked upon this subject. One so often finds when emigration is mentioned a passionate desire to depopulate these islands, a desire based upon that curious idea which I think the right hon. Gentleman expressed extremely well, that all emigrants are consumers and all immigrants are producers.
We talk about over-population. What in the world does over-population mean? Humanity lives in groups. As against the neighbouring field, the local village is over-populated, and so it is in the world. Here we have a population of some 50 odd million, and this country provides better and more comfortable conditions in which to live for that 50 odd million than is provided almost anywhere else in the world. Why, therefore, should we talk of there being over-population in this country?
It used often to be said that emigration was the cure for unemployment. That is an old fallacy, but this time it is in reverse. Everybody who emigrates leaves vacant a job for somebody else to fill, but in the context of unemployment everybody forgets the emigrant's function as a consumer and his function as somebody who creates a job for other people. I think that was brought home very forcibly during the fuel crisis. There were not enough people in the mines with the result that there was not enough coal, and therefore the whole industry of the country came to a standstill for a time.
Remembering that, I think we ought to realise that we do not solve unemployment by reducing our population. In fact, each person who is here is creating jobs for other people. Again, emigration is suggested as a solution for the housing problem. The one thing which is absolutely certain is that everybody who emigrates from this country emigrates from a country with more houses to a country with less houses, because this country has more houses per head of the population than any other country in the world with, I think, the doubtful exception of Sweden, which is not generally discussed in connection with emigration schemes.
Again, there is the suggestion that we need a vast emigration policy for strategic reasons. This seems to me to be one of the quaintest reasons of all to be advanced, because what happens if we go to war? The very first thing we do is to put every bit of transport we have into action to bring more people here. More men and women are always wanted in this country in the event of war. The assumption that in war-time most of our people are not even worth their keep seems, in a sense, the maddest point of view. I do not think it works out that way. Indeed, all experience shows that in war-time there is a more tremendous need for the services of everybody even than in peacetime. Therefore, the idea that for strategic reasons one should reduce populations seems to me to be certainly contrary to any experience.
Over and above all this, one has also to consider the problem of an ageing population. I congratulate the Minister upon one of the most satisfactory aspects of the scheme covered by this Bill—that it has not been exclusively concerned with the export of the most desirably aged groups. It has been concerned with a cross-section of the population, though that has not been a perfect cross-section and it never will be.
Any large-scale emigration would always tend to leave more old people behind and take more young people away if only because it is the younger people who are less set in their ways and who have the inclination to emigrate. Therefore, any emigration standing by itself must aggravate the problem created by an ageing population.
There is also the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Labour did not deal with at any length—the dislocation of an industrial economic organisation which has been designed for an existing population if one suddenly reduces that population, a dislocation the ramifications of which are difficult to anticipate precisely but which one can well imagine. Again one has to consider this matter not merely from the point of view of Britain, which is the giving end, but from the point of view of the Dominion, which is the receiving end.
The bland assumption is always made that here are vast areas waiting to be


occupied and developed and that here, if only people could go out, are a great many new acres which will come into production. That is a form of thinking which, if I may put it that way, we learned a little better of as a result of the groundnuts scheme. The idea is that one looks at a map and one sees a large bit of red and one says, "That is splendid, look how big this is, quite as big as Britain and therefore it can grow as much as Britain does. It can produce as much as Britain does if only we can get the people there." But that does not work out in practice.
There may be 100 or 1,000 acres available for a man in Central Australia, but that 100 or 1,000 acres very often do not provide him with as good a living as half an acre would do in England. One has to consider not merely housing and industrial equipment available for him to work the land, but the actual growing capacity of the land itself. In many of these areas that growing capacity has been greatly exaggerated. We are all developed by our environment. We are most suited in the environment where we have been developed, and to assume that any man will be not merely as useful but more useful in a new environment, with new techniques, new companions, new ways and habits, seems to me to be an assumption which is difficult to support. None the less I support this Bill, and I believe that in spite of all these elements, an emigration policy is highly important for this country, but I believe that it must be combined with an immigration policy into this country.
Today we are faced with the problem of the expelees in Germany, and I believe that this is the gravest of all the problems which face Europe today. There are some 6 million to 7 million people who are genuinely surplus population, people who are in an area where they are not provided with the opportunity of making a living for themselves, people with a desperate desire to return to their homes, that desperate desire being one which can only be achieved in war. Where we have 6 million or 7 million virile, capable people with a vested interest in the prospect of war, that is a danger in any community, and I believe that the peace of Europe depends very largely on our providing a solution for those 6 million or 7 million expelees at present in Germany.
The various nations—Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada—are areas with populations relatively small compared with ours. Any number of people who emigrate to them represent a far higher proportion of the population in their new homes than they do in England. That is what we have got to consider. I think that we should release restrictions upon people coming into this country and that we should provide more homes for these people who desperately need homes.
I believe that a successful community requires some circulation of population. Constantly in our history we have received into our population foreign emigrants, and every time we have profited from their arrival. There are the Huguenots, the Flemish weavers and the Normans. I believe we are already profiting from the arrival of the Balts whom we received after the last war. I believe this sort of policy should be continued, and I think also that it is an aspect of full employment.
I do not know whether hon. Members opposite still believe in full employment; they seem at times to be a little doubtful about it, but if we believe in full employment then we necessarily believe that every man shall have a choice of job, and if every man has a choice of job the result will be that there will always be some jobs which not enough people choose. That has already been our experience. We shall not solve that problem merely by raising the wages of the most unpleasant jobs. As one's system becomes more successful there will be a greater tendency for people to adopt the attitude that there are jobs which they will not take at any price.
The problem can only be solved by bringing into the community people from areas less fortunate than these islands—people who will be pleased to come and form part of our community—on condition that they enter into certain undermanned industries for a certain number of years. We have had that experience already. The trade unions will have gradually to bring their members to accept that fact, and the fact that a full employment policy will only be operated upon the basis of an immigration at one end and an emigration at the other. We shall have done much for the peace of the world; we shall have done much for many desperately unhappy frustrated


lives; we shall have done much for human happiness, and I think we shall have done much for our own community as well, if we can help to solve the problem of the expelees, which is both a threat and a blight to Europe.
Here we have an opportunity. The International Governmental Committee has been formed. It has taken over I.R.O. If I may have the attention of the Minister for a moment I should like to ask him this question: What subscription are we going to make to the International Governmental Committee, whose purpose it is to deal with these expelees? Can the Minister give an answer? The Committee's budget at present is £10 million. The Americans have provided half of that. What are we going to do about it? Here is the problem of the disposal of these homeless people, which is a vital problem for us. Are we only going to get a sneer from the Minister? This is a question of vital importance. What are we going to do about this?
I am ready to give way at any moment if the Minister will reply. Are we not to get any sort of reply to this question? Does the Minister regard this problem as a trifling one? Does he regard it as irrelevant to the purposes of this Bill? Is it not vital to the purposes of this Bill? Or does the Patronage Secretary's imposition of silence apply to his Ministers as well as to his back benchers?
I think this is quite a new experience. I have never before in this House found a Minister in charge of a Bill solemnly refusing to give any kind of answer during a final speech. It is not a question of his waiting for his speech. It is something quite new and something which does not seem to me to be wholly respectful to this House. Are we really not going to get an answer? Will not the Minister ask the Chief Whip to give him permission to open his mouth? This artificially silenced party opposite—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section one of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the moneys so payable under the said Act of 1922.—[Mr. John Foster.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Paget: The Financial Resolution—and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) for handing me a copy—provides
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section one of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, it is expedient to authorise the payment … of moneys.
May I ask the Minister this question? Is the payment to be made out of this fund in addition to or in substitution of any subscription to be made by the Government to the inter-Governmental Committee to deal with the I.R.O. programme? Are we not to have an answer? Has the Minister now been released by the Chief Whip and allowed to open his mouth? This is a serious matter. At Question time we had the Minister of Transport in irons, not allowed to open his mouth upon his subject, and now we have the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations equally in irons, not being allowed to open his mouth, prevented this time by the Patronage Secretary. Perhaps in the case of a full Minister it is the Prime Minister who holds him down. Now, when it is a mere Under-Secretary of State, the Patronage Secretary does it.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: On a point of order. I do not like to intervene, but would it be more convenient to consider this as contentious business and for the Patronage Secretary to set it down


for another day when perhaps the Minister will be prepared to answer?

The Chairman: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman opposing?

Mr. Bing: Yes, Sir Charles.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair, to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the advances which may be made under section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising to one hundred million pounds the limit of fifty million pounds imposed by the said section twelve in respect of such advances, in the sums which, under or by virtue of the said Act of 1946, are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, raised by borrowing, remitted or paid into the Exchequer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: On a point of order. Ought we to discuss this contentious matter now? I know that my hon. Friends have a great many points to raise.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): It may be contentious, but it is exempted business.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), "That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee."—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

10.5 p.m.

Mr. I. Enoch Powell: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pedestrian Crossings (London) (Amendment) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 421), dated 4th March, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be annulled.
I would suggest that I be permitted at the same time to refer to the contents of the next Motion on the Order Paper,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pedestrian Crossings (General) (Amendment) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 420), dated 4th March, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be annulled.
The point on both Motions is the same.
If I may do that, I should like to begin by making it clear that I am not moving this Motion in regard to the subject matter either of the principal Regulations or of these Regulations, which amend them. The purpose of these amending Regulations is to ensure that a factor which has hitherto impeded prosecutions in connection with pedestrian crossings—perhaps better known as zebra crossings—shall be removed.
Hitherto it has been necessary, for a prosecution to succeed, to show that the pedestrian crossing in question conformed exactly to the specifications laid down in the principal Regulations. If there were the smallest variation in the actual crossing from the prescribed size and layout of the pedestrian crossing, then the prosecution was liable to fail; and this has in many cases occurred. The effect of the Regulations which the Minister has laid is to provide that where the crossing substantially conforms with the principal Regulations, there, in that case, those Regulations shall be deemed to have been complied with.
To that easement I raise no objection; but another change is made by these Regulations in the form of the principal Regulations. The principal Regulations prescribed the appropriate width for a pedestrian crossing. Now the amendment which is made by these Regulations is to insert an exception in these words:
… except where the Minister otherwise authorises in the case of any particular crossing.


In other words, the Minister is given the power to authorise exceptions from the layout and specifications for a pedestrian crossing which are laid down in the Regulations; and these exceptions are in addition to the general proviso that very minor deviations may be disregarded.
The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, when it considered this Regulation, inquired of the Minister in what form he intended to make this authorisation when he wished to constitute an exception. We learn from the Fourth Report of the Committee, which was presented to the House on 31st March, that the authorisation will
not be by way of Statutory Instrument but should consist of a written authority to a named local authority to establish
crossings of particular sizes which vary from those laid down in the principal Regulations.
Thus the Minister has made it quite clear that this authorisation will not be by Statutory Instrument but will be by a private written communication from himself to a local authority. It is upon that point that I wish to secure a reply from my hon. Friend. This form of Ministerial authorisation raises a most important question of principle, however minor may be the actual matter in connection with which it arises.
The point of principle can be made most clear by reference to a celebrated case in 1947, that of Blackpool Corporation v. Locker. That was a case in which a requisition by a local authority was made in pursuance of powers delegated to that local authority by a Minister in a private communication. I should like to trouble the House with a few sentences from the judgment of Lord Justice Scott when the matter was brought before the Court of Appeal in November and December, 1947.
The learned judge said:
The maxim that ignorance of the law does not excuse any subject represents the working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests. … That maxim applies in legal theory just as much to written as to unwritten law, i.e., to statutory law as much as to common law or equity, but the very justification for that basic maxim is that the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public—in the sense, of course, that, at any rate, its legal advisers have access to it at any moment as of right.

Then the learned judge, referring later to delegated legislation, says that the citizen:
… is bound by the terms of the delegated legislation, but … at least knows or his lawyers can tell him just what his rights and duties and restrictions are under the new law because each kind of statutory law is at once published by the King's printer, whether as Acts of Parliament or as statutory instruments.
Here we have what is really a parallel case. We have a Statutory Instrument, the Regulations against which I am moving the Motion, laid before the House and therefore subject to negative Parliamentary procedure. But we have further sub-delegated legislation under those Regulations which is not being exercised in a public manner but in a private manner merely by a written communication from the Minister to a local authority.
Therefore, it seems to me that this aspect of these Regulations falls under the condemnation of the learned judge in the case to which I referred. It is another case where sub-delegated legislation is withdrawn from public knowledge and thereby violates the basic principle that the written law, the statute law, ought to be knowable by the citizen who is bound by it.
As the judge said:
… for delegated legislation made under powers conferred by a regulation"—
this is the case in point—
or other legislative instrument not being itself an act of Parliament there is no general statutory requirement of publicity in force today.
It may be said that the effect upon the citizen of the sub-delegated legislation which we have here is less serious than in the case of 1947. There a citizen was being deprived of the use of his property by a legislative act of which he could have no knowledge. What is happening here is merely that a modification is being made in the statutory requirements.
Nevertheless, I submit that it is a serious matter. Hitherto persons prosecuted have been able to plead in their defence, and to plead successfully, that the pedestrian crossing in connection with which they have been prosecuted has not been properly constituted. Now by sub-delegated legislation, by a private communication of the Minister to a local authority, it is possible for an


apparently unauthorised or improper pedestrian crossing to be made a proper one.
In fact, it is impossible now for a private citizen to know whether or not a given pedestrian crossing is one which he is or is not obliged to respect. I hope that the narrow scope of the authorisation in this Regulation will not prevent my hon. Friend from recognising the importance of the principle which is at stake, the principle that the law by which a citizen is bound ought to be within his knowledge or the knowledge of his legal advisers, that there may be public access to it.
I hope my hon. Friend will be able to say either that this defect will be removed under an amending regulation, or at any rate, that in exercising his powers under the Regulations he and the Minister will always give publicity to his authorisation either by making a Statutory Instrument or by other means. I hope I can rely on the sympathy of my hon. Friend. Indeed, I feel that had the date of this Motion been six months earlier he would have been making the speech instead of me—except, of course, that he would have been making it with so much greater urbanity, wit and eloquence. Nevertheless, imperfectly as I have placed the matter before him, I commend it to his understanding and his sympathy.

10.16 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to second the Motion.
I have to declare a negative interest, because this kind of thing cost me 10 guineas in August, 1944. I was prosecuted at Arundel Police Court for disobeying a non-published Statutory Instrument. It was made by the Regional Commissioner, but it had never been properly published. As a sequel to that there was inserted in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, a subsection which provided that, in cases similar to that in which I was involved and where the matter was not of such general interests as to enable the publication by the Stationery Office of the Instrument, there must be appropriate local advertising.
I am inclined to think that these Amendments are in conflict with that

Act, because it lays down the procedure for these cases. Where there is a local application as distinct from a general application arrangements have to be made whereby an advertisement would be appropriately inserted in a publication covering the district affected.
By being fined 10 guineas I have done enough in the public interest to draw attention to this matter. Although I gave notice that I would appeal, because I thought that if my case had been tried by a more exalted bench than the five local magistrates who dealt with it in the lower court, I should have got away with it, I did not take the matter to appeal. However, the law was altered as a result of my experience. I do not think the law is being carried out here. I strongly support the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).

10.18 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I want to support the point of view put by my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, this is a matter of principle. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is as keen and as anxious as anyone else in this House to see that nothing will be done by his Ministry, whether by means of this or a similar Regulation or in any other way, which will in any way affect the important principle of law which is involved here.
I fully support the points already made, but I want to take a slightly different point. First, I fully appreciate, as I am certain everyone does, the difficulty that the Ministry of Transport are facing in this matter. These Regulations were made in connection with the system of pedestrian crossings which has been in operation since 1934. On the whole the Ministry has been very successful in the new system of zebra crossings, which have gained a great deal of support from the public. I hope they will contribute something towards reducing the toll of death on the roads.
There is the difficulty that the original Regulation, which the Regulation against which which we are praying tonight amends, lays down with the utmost


particularity the requirements of each pedestrian crossing. It soon became apparent in a number of cases that where some local authority had by chance not complied exactly with the original requirements of the Statutory Instrument, a prosecution was bound to fail.
The difficulty that my hon. Friend and his Ministry are obviously in is how to give a certain amount of latitude and leeway to local authorities where local and special circumstances arise which make it difficult to comply precisely with the terms of the original Regulation. I am wondering exactly how they will give that latitude.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, the words:
Except where the Minister otherwise authorises in the case of any particular crossing …
give an extraordinarily wide power to the Ministry of Transport. There is nothing whatever in Statutory Instrument No. 421 or in the Statutory Instrument No. 420 which shows exactly how this authorisation is to be given by the Minister, and I am wondering how it will be done.
Had there been a paragraph explaining the method by which an authorisation was to be given, we should have been a little clearer but, as the Regulation stands, we are in the dark. So I earnestly suggest to my hon. Friend that he looks at this matter once more, and that when, as he obviously will have to do, he introduces a further Regulation to amend the general Regulations, that point should be considered and some specific reference made in the amending Regulation showing what sort of authorisation should be given; also what publicity can be given, in the public interest to the authorisation which he proposes to give to local authorities; and, generally, that he will take into account the point raised by my hon. Friend.
There is one other more practical point which I will make quite shortly. As a matter of experience I am asking my hon. Friend to look again at the provisions of the original Instrument which deal with the question of marking the carriageway and the pavement with a specific sign at a distance from the pedestrian crossing, with the proviso that

no traffic shall stop or otherwise park in any way between that sign and the crossing.
Part of the amending Regulations which are being prayed against tonight exempts bicycles from that provision. Up to now it has been the case that anybody who dared to leave a bicycle standing against the kerb between the sign marked in yellow paint against the kerbstone and the line of studs was committing an offence. The Regulations exempt bicycles, whether mechanically propelled or not, from that provision.
I ask my hon. Friend to look at this point carefully. Speaking as a motorist, I am not certain even now that motorists fully appreciate the requirement of the law. The fact is that if one dares to park a motor car between the sign and the line of studs, one commits an offence. One of the reasons why people are leaving their cars in that position, and thereby blocking the view of an oncoming motorist from seeing pedestrians coming from the pavement over the crossing, is that unless they know where the sign is, they cannot tell whether or not they are committing an offence.
I have always thought that these signs can be easily obscured by dirt, mud or rain. The yellow paint is not permanent, it is not easily seen and it easily wears away. I hope, therefore, that consideration will be given to making a more prominent mark which will indicate to motorists the distance—I think it is 40 feet—within which they are not allowed to park. Generally, the most important point is that already made by my hon. Friends, and I strongly support the Motion.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): The House should always be grateful to any hon. Members who exercise the gift of scrutiny of delegated legislation of any kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was kind enough to say that in another incarnation I used to take some interest in these matters and that had the Prayer been put down six months ago, I should have been supporting it with what, I think, he was good enough to call my "usual urbanity." Of course, that is not the case, because six


months ago my hon. Friend, myself and all other hon. Members were engaged upon the hustings, where our oratory was apt to be of a somewhat different character. Suffice it to say that we have all got here, which is the acid test on those occasions.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: And broken promises since.

Mr. Braithwaite: On this rather narrow point I might be ruled out of order if I were to deal with the broken promises of the late Government to which the hon. Gentleman calls my attention.
The two sets of Regulations which are being prayed against are, for practical purposes, identical, as my hon. Friend indicated, and they were tabled to amend those which came into operation on 31st October last and which introduced what are popularly known as zebra crossings.
The House may recall that on 21st February last, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), when he obtained the Adjournment on the general topic of road casualties, called attention, among other points which he then raised, to the unsatisfactory operation of these Regulations. Replying then, I promised the House that new Regulations would shortly be laid. This was done on 6th March, and the main changes were concerned with the marking of these crossings.
The effect is, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West, in moving the Motion, that if a crossing does not comply strictly with the provisions of the Regulations about the layout of the lines of studs or about black and white striping, the crossing will still be valid provided that the general appearance of the lines of studs and the black and white stripes is not materially impaired. In addition, the first stripe at each side of an uncontrolled crossing is no longer required to be black.
The stern necessity for this amendment was thrown into sharp relief following an unsuccessful prosecution in a magistrates' court at Bristol, in my constituency, on 1st February. The result of the case, which obtained wide publicity, made it

quite clear that greater tolerance was required in the prescribed markings, if I may give one example, to cater for unusual shapes of street which are caused by bell-mouthed junctions.
The other changes—one of these was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay)—are that bicycles, whether or not mechanically propelled, which are not fitted with sidecars, are exempted from the restrictions which may be imposed under the Regulations on vehicles waiting on the approaches to a crossing. It is also expressly provided that these restrictions do not apply to vehicles which are stopping to give precedence to pedestrians using a crossing; and secondly, that the Minister is given power under the amending Regulations to authorise, in particular cases, crossings more than 16 ft. or less than 8 ft. wide.
Here is the bone of contention, small though I believe it to be, as I hope to convince my hon. Friend. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments have reported on the Pedestrian Crossing (Amendment) Regulations, drawing the special attention of the House of Commons to them
on the grounds that they appear to make unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute.
Before making this Report to us the Select Committee had observed that under Regulation 2 (2) of each set of these amending Regulations now before us, the Minister was given power to authorise deviation from the Regulations and that it was not clear whether this authorisation was to be by Statutory Instrument or otherwise. The Select Committee asked for an Explanatory Memorandum, which we provided, and which is given as an appendix on pages 3 and 4 of the Report, which hon. Members doubtless have in their hands.
I claim, on behalf of the Explanatory Memorandum, that it does explain, which is not always the case, and puts the case with admirable clarity. The Committee have not stated exactly what is their objection, but I think that probably they consider that as Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, under which the original pedestrian crossings were laid down, gives the Minister power to prescribe the marking of crossings, in Regulations which have to be laid before Parliament, he


should not be given the power to alter them without the authority of Parliament. To use a vulgarism, that seems to be the rub of the matter.
In the wording of Section 18 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934—hon. Members who were here at the time may remember that there was considerable discussion about this when the Act was passing through the House—the Minister's powers under the Section are extremely wide. For instance, it empowers the Minister
to make regulations … with respect to the indication of the limits of a crossing by marks on the roadway or otherwise.
One could hardly go wider than that.
This does not mean that the Minister need necessarily prescribe the limits of crossings in Regulations at all. It would, for instance, be quite possible legally, if considered desirable in this particular matter we are discussing, to provide for a system which would require the site of any individual crossing to be approved by an inspector or divisional road engineer and for them to say how the limits were to be indicated. Had that been the course of action taken by the Minister, no complaint could have been made under the 1934 Act.
My hon. Friend quoted a case, with which I must immediately confess I am not familiar—a Blackpool local government matter, I think, not a transport affair, but something to do with requisitioning of property under which the Minister acted on a letter sent to the local authority—presumably not a private letter but one available at the town hall for inspection—

Mr. Powell: I cited the case because it is a fairly well-known example of the effects of sub-delegated legislation, and to enable me to quote the judgment of the learned judge in that case. But in that instance the local authority declined to communicate to the public the contents of the Minister's authority to them.

Mr. Braithwaite: My hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not know about that. Under the 1934 Act that procedure would not be necessary at all; the inspector or divisional road engineer could lay down the crossing and there is no question of the public being excluded from knowledge of the crossing as it is there for all to see.
I now come to the main point of this matter, and I hope I shall have the sympathy of all hon. Members who rightly raised this question when I say that the Minister considers that it is better to give general guidance and achieve reasonable uniformity throughout the country by laying down in wide, but not too wide, terms the method by which these crossings should be indicated. Those travelling from town to town would be the first to tell us, if we could question them, the advantage of having zebra crossings throughout the country of a general uniform standard.
The Regulation which came into operation on 31st October was found to be too tightly and narrowly drawn. I do not want to make any party point about that; the scheme was in an experimental stage, and there had to be weeks and months of trial and error. But, I think that had the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) still been at the Ministry of Transport, he would have acted very much as we have acted in the light of experience.
These amending Regulations relax the original ones, but so as not to relax them, perhaps one might say, unnecessarily, Regulation 2 (2) of the new Regulations says in effect that only where the Minister authorises it shall a particular crossing be less than 8 feet or more than 16 feet wide. We ought to be very careful about this, because this is a matter of importance, but with the greatest respect, I submit that the effect of this limiting provision is not to derogate from the principle of Parliamentary control, nor to place excessive powers in the hands of the Minister, but rather to prevent unnecessary eccentricities; I think that that is the word. We do not want them in crossings, for it would militate against the reasonable uniformity to which I referred a few moments ago.
Thus, while it is always open to this House to reject any Regulations made under this Section by the Minister, there is not, so it seems to us, anything illegal or constitutionally improper in the amending Regulations. They might well have been so drawn as to have allowed for width, in general, to be 25 or 30 feet; but we do not want these very wide crossings laid down except in particularly unusual circumstances.
Such circumstances do exist in a very limited number of cases. There is one such spot which we have in mind at Lewisham High Street. Here, especially at certain times of the day, very large numbers of pedestrians cross the road and are shepherded on to the zebra crossing by guard rails on the pavement on each side of it. The local authority has asked the Minister for a specially wide crossing with the agreement and concurrence of both the police and the divisional road engineer.
That is a case of variation for which we seek to provide, and I would assure my hon. Friends who have moved and seconded this Motion, and who have properly concerned themselves with legal and constitutional points connected with one small provision of the amending Regulations, we have no desire to take advantage of a loophole in a Statutory Instrument.
I think I must, however, make this point. The House will have noted, indeed perhaps with satisfaction because there was a good deal of controversy in the early days of the zebra crossings, that the amending Regulations have been received, so far as we can judge, without objection or protest. I think that they have succeeded in attracting general approval, and it is accepted that they are really concerned with safety of life.
I do not want to make too much of the fact, but there may be some significance in the welcome drop which the road casualties for February have shown. It is the first for many months, and it would be a bold and unwise man who would say that this is a direct result of the introduction of the zebra crossings or of the amending Regulations. But, we have heard much less about the difficulties affecting these crossings since the Regulations were laid.
It is surely the object of all members, wherever they sit in the House—to provide a crossing that in general appearance is recognisable as such and that will be respected by motorists and others. In this connection, meticulous measurements are of no importance. I would, however, repeat, that we are still to some extent in an experimental stage. The last word on this subject, of course, has not been said.
I have taken a careful note, for instance, of the point raised by my hon. Friend, the Member for Henley, which will certainly be looked at and studied with the care it deserves. I hope that the House, however, will feel that no constitutional indecency has been committed and will feel able to allow these amending Regulations to stand.

Mr. Hay: Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea of exactly how the authorisation will be given to the local authority? Will it be done by some communication open to the public? That is really the crux of the matter.

Mr. Braithwaite: Of course, one very useful piece of machinery consists of the Road Safety Committee. The siting of crossings is agreed between the divisional road engineer and the borough surveyor. I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar with the way these things arise: if there is agreement, probably nothing is heard of the matter.
It is when there is disagreement that local councils and elected representatives of the people become vocal; hon. Members then get in their postbags letters from local authorities and others complaining of the removal of pedestrian crossings here and there. There was great difficulty about them outside the schools for a long time until the system of road patrols became more accepted and was realised to be a better system than others. The reply I must give at this stage is that where there is no controversy there is likely to be no publicity; where there is controversy, it will be made known through the local authority.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged for the very full reply, and am sure that every Member will have been glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the fall in the casualty statistics.
I confess I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend did not seem to be worried about the lack of publicity that would be given to the authorisation. When he referred to the procedure under Section 18 of the 1934 Act and to the fact that the Regulations under that Act could be very wide and loose indeed, he failed to note the point that these Regulations would be laid, and that the House would have an opportunity of criticising the form in which they were made.
The whole gravamen of this Motion is that no publicity, apparently, is in the ordinary course to be given to this authorisation. It is true that in many cases there will have been discussion locally beforehand; and my hon. Friend went on to say that if there is agreement with the borough engineer and the local authority, then nothing will be heard of the matter. But the public ought to hear of it.
I feel that this debate has apprised my hon. Friend of the anxiety that is naturally felt about any authorisation, binding the public, which is not automatically brought to their attention. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT POLICE (PAY AND CONDITIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.44 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: An Adjournment debate provides an opportunity for raising the injustices of a small group, and tonight I raise the question of some 4,000 policemen who have been denied parity of conditions and treatment with the rest of the police force for something like the past 40 years. I think it should not be treated lightly because I am dealing with only 4,000 men. An injustice to a small group is as grave as an injustice to a large one.
Might I say that this is by no means a party political issue? The claims I am putting forward, on behalf of these men, have already commanded the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House and, I hope, later in this debate, that an hon. Member from the other side will be taking part. The railways and the docks of this country have always provided for their own protection. When British Transport was nationalised, one of the things it took over was a police force, the British Transport Police. This is the second largest police force in the country, although it is infinitely smaller than the regular, main police body.
In addition to the British Transport Police Force, there also exist two other

small police groups, the Docks Police at the Port of London and the Docks Police at Manchester Docks. I hope to show that they have always marched in step with the regular civil police and have already achieved what I seek to achieve on behalf of the British Transport Police. First, I will give a brief history of the campaign of these men for what they regard as justice. In 1922, the Desborough Committee decided in favour of improved conditions for the police force. Unfortunately, the Transport Police were not included in this Committee's terms of reference.
They made representations to their employers, the privately-owned British railways of the time, secured no satisfaction, and, finally, the matter went to an independent Chairman, who made an award to them of wages below those awarded to the regular police force. But this Chairman, Sir Harry Munroe, K.C., in his Report on the award, did say:
The Railway Police Forces have established their claim to the status of a police force.
He pointed out, as one of the things which impressed him most in the case of these men, that they did have, in the course of their duties, to assume police responsibilities over their fellow workmen in the railways and the docks. In 1938 and 1942, the Transport Police again applied for civil police pay, civil police conditions, and parity with the civil police force. Each time their application was turned down. Then, in 1943, although that complete scheme for parity was not recognised an award did bring them almost within touch of the goal, for which they had been working for some 20 years.
The war was on and it seemed as if the British public, at last, realised these men, who were endangering their lives day-by-day in the protection of our vital, important transport system, were policemen in every sense of the word. Indeed, some two or three years after the war, in 1947, on a further application, and with complete agreement from both sides, the Transport Police did achieve, for the first time in their history, an award which brought them practically on all fours with the civil police.
I understand that the only major difference was that the civil police force got a rent allowance. The Transport Police


did not receive this, but got something almost as compensation for it, free privilege travelling. In 1947, the Transport Police had achieved at least parity of treatment with other policemen. Some of the younger men, who have spoken to me, wondered whether that was a moral recognition of a rightful claim or whether it was an attempt to recruit into this vitally important force young men who were to be later shockingly deceived.
In 1948, the Oaksey Committee was appointed to deal with conditions in the police force. I think everyone will agree that that Committee did a great job. Its monumental work and the carrying out of its recommendations by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) stand out as a great act of justice to a great police force by a great Home Secretary. While that Committee was sitting, the Transport Police pressed their claim to be included in the terms of reference. They told me that in the year that Committee was sitting they were asked to hold back their claims pending its report, and they certainly gained the impression—and I have been told this by man after man in this police force—that when the Oaksey award was finally arrived at they would certainly benefit by it.
They were to be deeply disappointed. From 1947 to 1949 they had been equal with the civil police, but the 1949 awards to the civil police created a vast gap once more between the two police forces, a gap which these men have ever since been urging should be narrowed and eventually removed. Every attempt on their part to put forward a claim for parity has been treated by the Railway Executive as an industrial claim for more wages, and their demand for parity—a moral demand as much as a demand for economic improvement—has been brushed aside.
This happened in May, 1950. It happened again in February, 1951. In July, 1951, the Trustram Eve Committee's Report secured further benefits for the civil police and completed the work which the Oaksey Committee had carried out some two years earlier. But when the Transport Police again put forward their claim for parity it was rejected once more. The net result of the awards of the Oaksey Committee and of

the Trustram Eve Committee has been an improvement of something like 44 per cent. in pay of the civil police. On the other hand, the rises received by the Transport Police during the same period only amount to something like 16 per cent.
In August last year they made a further application to the Railway Executive. That has been dawdling on ever since, and now, I understand, has been referred by both sides to an arbitrator. The point I want to make is that throughout the negotiations British Transport has consistently refused to recognise the moral claim of these men for parity of treatment with the civil police force.
I am quite certain that many people will be as surprised as I was when I learned, some six months ago, of the disparity which exists between two groups of men whom I am certain everyone in this House and in the country regard as doing the same kind of work. The Transport Police service demands the same high standard of probity and intelligence as the civil police service. For examinations which qualify for promotion these men attend police schools and colleges and take the same Civil Service examinations. By Royal Warrant these men are entitled to the same Police Long Service Medal.
A number of these men have won the King's Police Medal for Gallantry. On the territory which they guard—the docks and ships, the railways and transport—they have all the powers, protection and privileges under which civil police work. They take the same oath of loyalty to Her Majesty before a magistrate when being sworn-in as constables. Assaulting such police officers is exactly as serious an offence as assaulting civil police officers.
It is true that the Transport Police work has certain special features in the protection of railway property, but in the great civil police forces there is also a certain amount of specialised work. These men have power to arrest, power to charge, and power to give evidence in court. They run the same physical dangers as civil policemen. Yet their conditions since 1949 have been allowed to fall drastically below those of the civil police. A Transport policeman gets £65 a year less than a civil policeman when


both are constables in their first year. The maximum rate of pay for a Transport Police constable is £5 a year less than the minimum rate for a civil constable.
A police sergeant under British Transport gets £420 a year; but in the civil police £540 a year is the initial salary. The maximum rate for the Transport Police sergeant is £80 a year less than the minimum rate for a civil police sergeant. Yet the Transport Police sergeant includes in his qualifications the same first-class certificate which officers of the civil police force have to hold. The Transport Police inspector of the first class, that is, of the highest grade of Transport Police inspectors, has a maximum salary of only £10 a year more than the civil police sergeant, and that maximum is £1 a week less than the minimum rate paid to his comparative rank in the civil police and nearly £2 a week less than the maximum given to a civil police inspector. A third-class police inspector, qualified by four examinations, and often having attended courses at the police colleges at Wakefield or Hendon, starts at £30 a year less than the maximum of a constable in a civil police force.
I am sure that every fair-minded person will agree that the case of these 4,000 policemen is a just one. In the present circumstances, promising young men are moving to the far more attractive civil police forces. No one can blame them. If these men were not employed by the docks and railways, the State would have to employ other policemen to do the job, and it would have to pay the police rates which exist outside the Transport Police. The railways and transport belong to the people, and the services to the State of the Transport Police are the same as the services of the civil police.
At the end of the war high tributes were paid to the Transport Police force. It was recognised by everyone that they carried out their war-time tasks with the same high sense of purpose and courage which marked the finest traditions of the British police. I speak with the memory of the work of the Transport Policemen in the docks in my constituency, vital work which they performed when the town was being blitzed night after night. I would urge the hon. Gentleman who

is to reply to the debate to use his influence with the Minister of Transport, and with the Government, to do what I think is an act of justice long overdue to a group of 4,000 men, all on a par with the great British police forces but who have been denied, except for one short period from 1947 to 1949, parity of conditions with their brothers. I hope we shall be told that the Minister will do what he can to help these men.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I want to add two or three points to the case which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, West (Dr. King). In the first place, I think it should be said that these men cannot take the usual steps and make representations through a trade union. They have seen the organised workpeople who are engaged in the transport industry derive considerable advantages in recent years through the work of the trade unions and their negotiations with employers.
Secondly, it is of great importance that the British Transport Police are no longer railway police because the nationalisation of the industry has made it necessary for them to undertake duties outside railway premises. Now, the road services, both goods and passenger, fall within their ken. Their work takes them not only into the railways and docks, but into road transport depots and has varied and widened considerably since nationalisation.
My third point is on the question of superannuation. Since the attempt was made to bring this service into parity with the civil police the benefits of the railway superannuation funds have been extended to them but, as the Parliamentary Secretary realises, these men were all late entrants paying heavy deductions on their salaries. Their pensions are on a rather meagre standard. Comparison of the superannuation received by the Transport Police with the benefits given to the civil police makes it clear that they differ very widely indeed.
Police pensioners receiving pensions for a considerable time have two amended Acts of Parliament in their favour and there is a further promise held out to them in the Budget. Their position, therefore, vis-à-vis the Transport Police, will be better still. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies will


take note of these three points: the question of the limitation on trade union activity, the extension of work which nationalisation has brought about, and the actual hardship existing in their ranks because they are late entrants into superannuation.

11.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Peter Bennett): We have listened with interest and appreciation to the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite for the Transport Police. I am sure we agree with the testimony paid to the service which these men carried out particularly during the time of the bombing attacks; and have not forgotten it. But I have to state what the position is and to make it quite clear that there has been nothing accidental or casual about the way the question has been dealt with.
The Transport Act of 1947 realised that there would be a problem of this kind and Section 97 dealt with arrangements for settling the hours, pay, and conditions of service of this force. Provision was made and the actual machinery for negotiation came into being as a result of an agreement in April, 1951, between the Railway Executive, the London Transport Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and the representatives of the police forces attached to all those Executives.
This agreement covered the inspectors, sergeants and constables of the police forces for the whole of the British Transport Police. A conference in accordance with the terms of the Act was set up to settle the wages and terms of service. Provision was made that in the case of failure to agree at an area level all matters should be referred to this conference, and it further provided, as I shall mention later, for the usual case of appeal. The agreement of April, 1951, provided for the setting up, also, of the British Transport Police Force Federation, which all officers in the police forces concerned, of the rank of inspector, sergeant or constable, are free to join.
So, when the Act of 1947 was passed I think we can agree that people foresaw that there might be problems and set up the machinery to deal with them. The only responsibility which my right hon.

and learned Friend the Minister of Labour has is that if the conference fails to agree an independent chairman shall be appointed with power to give binding decisions, such chairman to be chosen by mutual agreement or, failing that, to be nominated by the Minister of Labour. That is the legal position. On 30th January of this year a letter was received from the joint secretaries of the British Transport Police Force Conference, to which I have referred, stating that the Conference had met and had failed to agree on the claim by the police side.
The claim was for improved rates of pay and conditions of service for the constables, sergeants and inspectors employed in the police forces controlled by the Commission. This letter asked the Minister, in accordance with the relevant Section of the Transport Act, to nominate an independent chairman for the purpose of dealing with the claim. It should be noted that the Minister does not appoint; he nominates. On 19th February my right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the joint secretaries nominating, as Chairman, Mr. John Cameron, Q.C., Dean of the Faculty of Advocates of Edinburgh. Since then it is understood that the hearings of the claim have taken place and that four days were devoted at the end of March and the beginning of April; so I take it that in that period the case was put forward.
We are informed that the Chairman's award has now been sent to the parties. We have not seen the award and we do not know what is in it. No doubt we shall do so in due course. In any case, I am sure that the House will agree that it would be quite out of order for us to discuss the terms of employment of the Transport Police which have been submitted to arbitration, and when the two sides of the Conference have put forward their cases and the Minister's sole responsibility is to nominate a chairman. The Minister has no responsibility for the terms of employment and that is quite in keeping with the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government, in which matters of this sort are left entirely to be settled between the employers and workers concerned.
Whether the Transport Police get increased rates of pay, or whether they achieve parity with the ordinary police, is not a matter in which the Minister of


Labour has any responsibility whatever. All that he can do is to nominate a chairman to hear the case in accordance with the terms of the Act. That he has done, and the Chairman he has appointed is a man in whom he has the fullest confidence. He has a very wide experience in the field of arbitration. The award will be made public in due course, and it is not for me to say whether it will satisfy the contending parties. We have fulfilled entirely the responsibilities placed upon us. I am satisfied that the case the hon. Gentlemen have made will receive publicity, and we trust that the matter will end in satisfaction to all concerned.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the findings of the Chairman will be binding on both sides, and that, both parties having pledged themselves to accept the findings, there will be no question of a further course open to either side?

Sir P. Bennett: That is the terms of the agreement under which the conference was set up and the arrangements made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.